WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission. European CITES regulation and France.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/7 (2000/C 219 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: European CITES regulation and France At the last conference of the parties to CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) held in Harare (Zimbabwe) in June 1997, it was decided by a majority of more than two thirds of its members to transfer the African elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe from Annex I (trade banned) to Annex II (controlled trade) of the Convention. This change of category enabled the three countries to legally export trophies, live specimens and certain products derived from elephants. They will also be authorised, as of 18 March 1999, providing certain conditions are met, to sell their legal stocks of raw ivory to a single purchaser, Japan. By this decision, the international community recognised that the elephant populations of the three Southern African countries were not under threat and demonstrated its approval of the effective fauna management policies pursued by these countries, particularly through national community development programmes under which rural popula- tions participate in and benefit from the management and conservation of wildlife resources. In November 1997, the Commission approved, on a qualified-majority basis, a regulation updating, following the decisions taken at the Harare conference, Council Regulation No 338/97 (1) on the application of CITES in the European Union. The amended regulation authorised, throughout the European Union, among other things, imports of live elephants and certain products derived from elephants originating in Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. The regulation is directly applicable in all the Member States of the European Union. However, France does not agree with the decision and, on 1 September 1998, a ministerial decree came into force prohibiting the importation of Southern African elephants and certain derivative products into France, thereby contravening the European regulation which does not allow stricter unilateral action. Is the Commission aware of the measure taken by France? If it is, has it notified France that the decree constitutes a breach of Community law? Does the Commission therefore intend, if it has not already done so, to bring legal action against France before the European Court of Justice for contravening Community law? (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997, p. 1. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1999) The Commission has not received notification from France of any specific acts or provisions that it may have adopted on the importation of and trade in trophies, live specimens or certain products derived from elephants of the species Loxodonta africana (African elephant) from the populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, with a view to implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), as amended in particular by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97 of 18 November 1997 (2). The Commission has not received notification of the Ministerial Decree referred to by the Honourable Member which apparently entered into force on 1 September 1998 and prohibits the importation into French territory of elephants from Southern Africa and certain products derived therefrom. However, enquiries have shown that, as the Honourable Member states, at least one Inter-Ministerial Decree has indeed been adopted in this area by France but has not been notified in any form to the Commission. This is the Decree of 30 June 1998 áon the importation, transport and commercialisation of certain specimens of African elephantsí. Under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, as amended, Commission and the Convention secretariat of implementation of this Regulation and of all implementation and enforcementí; áeach Member State shall notify the the provisions which it adopts specifically for the instruments used and measures taken for its legal C 219 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Having confirmed the lack of notification at least of the abovementioned Decree of 30 June 1998, which represents a breach by France of Article 20 of the Regulation, the Commission will consider as soon as possible what action to take on this matter. (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997. (2) OJ L 325, 27. 11. 1997, p. 1. (2000/C 219 E/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1554/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Crisis in the pig farming sector Can the Commission confirm whether overproduction in the above sector is at around 20 %? If so, does it believe that this is the main reason for the crisis proclaimed by the pig farming associations, or does it consider that there are other reasons? If so, what are they? Could the Commission limit overproduction by introducing Community ceilings? Does it not believe that a level playing field could be achieved for all if uniform environmental and health legislation were adopted throughout the EU? Why does the Commission not match each importation of zero duty pigs from non-member states with an exportation of equal quantities of processed pigmeat to markets outside the Community? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 October 1999) Production of pigmeat in the Community has increased during recent years. Total production in 1997 was 16,25 million tonnes and in 1998 production increased by 8 % to 17,56 million tonnes. During 1999 production is still expected to increase by around 2 %, the increase being mainly in the first half of the year. In the second half of 1999 and through the first half of 2000 production is forecasted to decline. The exports of pigmeat to third countries, which were aided by export refunds, amounted to 743 000 tonnes in the General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) year 4 (1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999), which represents 4 % of the total production and which could be regarded as oversupply. Oversupply of pigs was definitely one of the major reasons for very low producer prices in the second half of 1998 and in the first half of 1999. Pig markets have a cyclical nature with high production and, consequently, low price periods recurring every three to five years. However, there were also other reasons. Economic crises in main importing countries and increased competition from other exporting countries added difficulties for the European pig industry. The Commission has discussed with Member States possible measures to limit production on several occasions, but these measures have received little support from the majority of Member States. In these meetings the Commission has also stressed that Member States should fully implement Community and national legislation on environmental issues, which should help preventive excessive production peaks. The quotas for zero duty imports for GATT year 1998-1999 were 7 000 tonnes. However, only 2 500 tonnes were imported. For the same GATT year the Community had a ceiling for subsidised pigmeat exports of 483 000 tonnes, which was fully used. Therefore, the Community exports were many times the zero duty imports