WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/99 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Liquid waste in animal feedstuffs.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/71 (2000/C 203 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1854/99 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Mauritanian inspectors and the Community fleet (13 October 1999) For some months now, Community black hake fishermen working under the EU-Mauritania Fisheries Agreement have been protesting to the Commission about dubious Mauritanian inspection methods giving rise to totally unjustified fines. The methods consist of weighing six of the fullest boxes of fish with Romaní scales, the apparent purpose being to show that more fish are actually being caught than are recorded in the daily register, since the boxes in question are changed around until the inspectors obtain the weight they want. No account is taken of the fact that not all boxes weigh the same, since four separate sortings are carried out on board, while boxes containing the earlier catches also contain a larger quantity of ice to keep them fresh. Furthermore, the use of Romaní scales is completely unreliable under any circumstances, and quite unjustifiable on board a ship at sea. It should also be noted that these vessels catch an average 3 000 boxes, which means that the six boxes weighed account for only 0,2 of the total. Finally, black hake is not quota-bound. What steps is the Commission going to take vis-à-vis the Mauritanian authorities to put an end to inspections of this kind? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1999) Mauritania holds exclusive competence for inspection at sea of fishing activities in waters under its sovereignty. The Commission however, which has been several times notified of the procedures adopted, has already raised the matter with the Mauritanian authorities, the last occasion being in May 1999 when the Adviser to the Mauritanian Fisheries Minister visited Brussels. The Community pointed out that monitoring and inspection procedures for fishing activities needed to be adjusted to ensure fair and equitable treatment. The Commission will raise the matter again at the next meeting of the joint committee responsible for attending to proper working of the Agreement. (2000/C 203 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/99 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Liquid waste in animal feedstuffs (14 October 1999) I had the pleasure of putting a question about the use of liquid waste by the feedstuff industry both to Commissioner Fischler and to Council President Kalevi Hemilä on the occasion of their visit to Parliamentís Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 28 September 1999. Owing to the large number of topics covered in the discussion and to the lack of time it did not prove possible to give a sufficiently detailed answer to the question which I therefore wish to resubmit in writing. What action is the Commission taking to rule out the possibility of waste products being added to animal feedstuffs in the EU? In my country, Finland, such an activity would be unheard of and would result in the immediate closure of the factory concerned because of the serious risks to health. If nevertheless some countries wish to make use of certain materials, how does the Commission intend to define the concept of liquid waste? C 203 E/72 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (23 November 1999) There has been recently a lot of media attention on the use of sewage sludge nutrition in several Member States. The Commission reacted immediately requiring clarifications from the Member States concerned and organising urgent missions to verify the implementation of the relevant Community legislation. Commission Decision 91/516/EEC of 9 September 1991, establishing a list of ingredients whose use is prohibited in compound feedingstuffs (1), specifically prohibits the use of sludge from sewage plants treating wastewater. Nevertheless, it could be the case that certain Member States have given a different interpretation of the decision. Therefore, in order to avoid any ambiguity, the Commission is currently considering to amend the decision in question to clarify the scope of the prohibition. If it appears that a Member State is refusing to respect its obligations under Community law, the Commission will not hesitate to open proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty, should this prove necessary. (1) OJ L 281, 9. 10. 1991. (2000/C 203 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (14 October 1999) Subject: Export refund limits If it wishes to limit the amount of export refunds, why does the Commission not scrap its massively cumbersome proposals and simply reduce refund rates, since that would have the effect of reducing refunds while allowing current systems and procedures to operate as before? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 November 1999) First, the Commission does not see to which proposals the Honourable Member refers when mentioning ámassively cumbersome proposalsí. Second, there are in fact a number of agricultural products for which export refunds can be granted and the Commission is responsible for fixing their amounts. On the one hand, it takes into consideration the situation on the internal market and the outlet possibilities on the world markets. On the other hand, it is constrained by the ceilings resulting from the Uruguay Round agreement and has to make the best use of budgetary availabilities. As a result of the decisions on Agenda 2000, which were taken in the first half of 1999, the need for export refunds will be reduced in the near future for important sectors like cereals, milk, beef, pig- and poultrymeat. Moreover, in the context of the next ámillenium roundí of the World trade organisation, the Community, while respecting on the full Agenda 2000 package, is prepared to continue to negotiate the process of reduction in export subsidies provided that all such support is treated on equal basis