WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed.
Date: 2004-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FIFG, animal feedingstuffs, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, cereal substitute, eligibility criteria, fish product, food inspection, food processing, veterinary legislation

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/391

current 430 workers, some 300 women are now being pressurised to consent to unacceptable agreements
on their dismissal by the end of this month. It should be noted that this company has received various
subsidies.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How much Community subsidy has been paid to the Finex Group in Portugal and in other

EU countries?

2. What measures are the Commission and the Portuguese Government going to take with a view to

defending the employment and all the rights of Finex’s workers, most of whom are women?

3.

Is the Commission prepared to demand that the subsidies paid to the Finex Group should be repaid,
if Finex continues to put pressure on its workers with a view to getting rid of them?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Finex has received the following aid:

Community Support Framework (CSF II)

(in euro)

Total

European Social Fund
(ESF)

Orçameno da Segurança Social
(OSS)

PEDIP II

20 467,54

15 350,65

5 116,89

The granting of ESF assistance for vocational training measures is not subject to conditions linked to
undertakings’ continued existence, but to compliance with the access and eligibility criteria laid down in
the regulations in force at the time of allocation of such assistance.

The Commission feels that any investment in human capital is of the greatest importance at national and
regional levels. It must be underlined that ESF funding does not support a company as such, but provides
an investment in human capital, so that the training which individuals benefit from improves their
employability. Furthermore, as far as the Commission is aware, the company concerned is not in breach of
the rules on the granting of Structural Fund assistance.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the company concerned has received cofinancing
from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to EUR 308 413, for a project approved on
11 February 1996 under the programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (see CSF II) (1).

(1)

Financial assistance to Portugal for a specific industrial development programme.

(2004/C 84 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/04

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

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed

In his answer to my question E-1601/03 (1) of 30 June 2003, David Byrne, the Commissioner for Health
and Consumer Protection, stated: ‘Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) (the extended feed ban), implemented
by Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (3), both last amended by Commission Decision 2002/248/EC (4), aims
at preventing cattle from being exposed to ruminant meat-and-bone meal, potentially contaminated with
prions causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). It is a crucial tool in the control and eradication
of BSE in cattle and therefore necessary to guarantee safe beef. Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for
BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is a matter of control. In particular, the presence of fishmeal
may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Preliminary results of a
recent ring trial indicate that it is difficult to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed

C 84 E/392

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

containing 5 % of fishmeal with the present detection method. However, by modifying the microscopic
test, an analytical tool to improve the differentiation of fishmeal from other animal proteins may become
available on short term. […] appropriate validated analytical methods to differentiate ruminant proteins
from proteins of other species are not yet available and the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office is
still reporting deficiencies in the control of the feed ban. The Commission is aware that the conditions to
use fishmeal in non-ruminant feed have presented difficulties, resulting in a reduction of the market for
fishmeal
in non-ruminant animal nutrition since 2001. The proposal aims to simplify some of the
conditions for using fishmeal. A step-by-step lifting of the feed ban on a prudent and scientifically justified
basis may be considered in the light of development of analytical tests over the next six to twelve months.’

Can the Commission state whether it has already modified the microscopic test and whether an analytical
tool to improve the differentiation of fishmeal from other animal proteins is or will shortly be available?

If this is the case, can the Commission confirm whether it has begun or intends (if so, when?) to begin to
lift the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed?

Is the Commission aware of the social and economic damage to the Community’s fishmeal industry as a
result of this temporary restriction, and what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ease these
ill-effects?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 51.
(2) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 32.
(4) OJ L 84, 28.3.2002, p. 71.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Commission Directive 2003/126/EC of 23 December 2003 on the analytical method for the determination
of constituents of animal origin for the official control of feeding stuffs (1), introduces modifications to the
microscopic tests allowing the detection of small amounts of potentially Transmissible Songiform
Encephalopathy (TSE) infected proteins in feed containing fishmeal. Member States are to implement the
Directive by 1 July 2004.

In the meantime,
the Commission’s Joint Research Centre is carrying out ring trials to verify the
competence of laboratories in the current and new Member States to carry out these controls with this
modified method. The results should be available in June 2004. If the results of these ring trials are
favourable, a review of the measures on fishmeal will be considered.

As to subsidies or compensation, a detailed analysis of the Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance (FIFG)
Regulation shows that the fishmeal and oil processing industry is in general not eligible for public support.
The Council has considered that the FIFG’s limited resources should be dedicated to rationalising the
fishing industry and reducing its impact on marine ecosystems. Regarding support to investment in
processing, Point 2.4 of Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying
down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries
sector (2) specifies that ‘investments shall not be eligible for assistance where they concern: … fishery and
aquaculture products intended to be used and processed for purposes other than human consumption,
with the exception of investments exclusively for the treatment, processing and marketing of fishery and
aquaculture wastes;’.

As for financial compensation for cessation of activities or other financial compensation, the relevant
Article 16 (cid:1) temporary cessation of activities and other financial compensations, only applies to
‘fishermen and owners of vessels’. It should be stressed that through the adoption of Council Regulation
(EC) 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed
rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (3), the Council

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/393

agreed to delete from paragraph 1(c) of Article 16 the possibility to grant financial compensation to the
processing industry in general ‘where it depends for its supply on a resource covered by a recovery plan
and where imports cannot compensate for the reduced supply’.

(1) OJ L 339, 24.12.2003.
(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
(3) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0422/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: High-speed Lubian to Orense rail link giving central access to Galicia

The Spanish Government has just announced the changing of the route of the Lubian-Orense high-speed
link in Galicia, which is now to have a double electric track. The modification raises the cost of this line to
EUR 1 608 million. Has the Spanish Government submitted a request for funding for this line? What is the
deadline for the whole of the line to be completed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense is not part of the current trans-European
rail network (TEN-T) defined in 1996 (1). Work on this section of rail line is therefore not being funded
from the TEN-T budget; nor has funding been received from the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund.

The section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense is however included in the Commission’s
proposals in the current revision of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European
‘High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian
transport network. It forms part of priority project 19,
peninsula’. When the revised guidelines, including project 19, are adopted by Parliament and the Council,
the section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense will be eligible for Community support from
the TEN-T budget.

According to information received from the Spanish representative in the High-Level Group on the trans-
European transport network chaired by Karel Van Miert, the section will be completed in 2010.

(1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines

for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2004/C 84 E/0456)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0428/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: The future of publicly-owned regional airports in the light of the recent decision on Charleroi

Airport, in Belgium, and Ryanair

In light of the recent Commission decision on Charleroi Airport and Ryanair, can the Commission
indicate:

1. How publicly-owned airports can now compete with large privately-owned airports in attracting

traffic and new routes?