WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Imports of Victoria perch.
C 170 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 in accordance with the ECIP Regulation, the Commission has placed, after open public In addition, international tender, a contract with Deloitte S. A. to execute an independent appraisal which is due for completion before the end of 1999 and will be communicated to the Council and Parliament as soon as available. The measures introduced to further reinforce the management after 1995 of the ECIP programme were discussed and agreed with the Council and Parliament during 1994-1995 and are included in the present ECIP Regulation. These have been implemented fully by the Commission. They are independent evaluation appraisal studies (1990 Touche Ross, 1994 SEMA Group, 1999 Deloitte (in progress)), independent financial audits (1996 Coopers & Lybrand, 1997 Price Waterhouse Coopers), technical assistance units (1997 onwards), and specific anti-fraud provisions and penalty clauses in all contracts. (1) OJ L 28, 6. 2. 1999. (2000/C 170 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/99 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Imports of Victoria perch How many times in the past three years has the EU embargoed imports of Victoria perch from Uganda, Kenya or Tanzania? On each occasion, why did it do so and how long did the embargo last? What has the Commission itself done to help the fish export industries concerned in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania by means of development aid, particularly with reference to the EUís hygiene requirements? What measures has the Commission adopted to assist the European partners of the fish-exporting industry around Lake Victoria in their cooperation with that industry? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (27 October 1999) During the past three years the Commission has suspended the import of fishery products, including Nile Perch from Lake Victoria only once for Kenya and Tanzania. The Commission has never suspended imports from Uganda. The reasons for the suspension are clearly explained in the recitals of Commission Decision 1999/253 EC of 12 April 1999 on protective measures with regard to certain fishery products from or originating in Kenya and Tanzania (1). These measures are still in force. In addition the Commission adopted on April 1997 Decisions 97/0272/EC, 97/0273/EC and 97/0274/EC on protective measures with regard to fishery products originating respectively in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania (2). These imposed a systematic check for the presence of Salmonella on all fishery products entering the Community. The measures were adopted following an inspection visit, which confirmed the serious microbiological contamination of the water of Lake Victoria and the poor hygienic handling of the fishery products in these countries. New protective measures were adopted by Commission Decision 97/0878/EC of 23 December 1997 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery products originating in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique (3) and confirmed by Commission Decision 98/0084/EC of 16 January 1998 on protective measures with regard to fishery products from, or originating in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique and repealing Decision 97/0878/EC (4), following the insufficient measures applied by the sanitary authorities of these countries to control the outbreak of cholera which occurred in these countries at the end of 1997. The measures adopted included the systematic control of all fishery 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/45 products for the presence of Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Because of the time required to carry out these checks, the import of fresh products were prohibited. These measures were lifted on 30 June 1998 by Commission Decision 98/0418/EC of 30 June 1998 repealing Decision 98/0084/EC on protective measures with regard to fishery products from or originating in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique and amending the health certification for fishery products originating or proceeding from Uganda, Kenya and Mozambique (5). The current situation in the region has not yet resulted in specific requests for projects or support from any of the three countries concerned. However, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania have received in depth advice from the Commission on how to improve the standards of their test laboratories and export procedures. It is clear that should any of them come to the conclusion that they are not competent to carry out these improvements by themselves the Commission is prepared to assist in accordance with such request or requests under the current LomØ Convention. In addition the Commission is currently preparing a project applicable to all African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states on the strengthening of fish quality implementation capacity in the ACP countries. The Commission has already received a number of official requests from ACP states. It is expected that the European development fund committee will approve this project comprising € 5 million by the end of 1999. Initially it will be available for the support of ACP countries in setting up legal frameworks; the development of codes of practices for the local industry; the setting up of competent institutions and services; the training of human resources in quality inspection procedures; the training of laboratory staff, and the setting up of laboratories. (1) OJ L 98, 13. 4. 1999. (2) OJ L 108, 25. 4. 1997. (3) OJ L 356, 31. 12. 1997. (4) OJ L 15, 21. 1. 1998. (5) OJ L 190, 4. 7. 1998. (2000/C 170 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1595/99 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Council (20 September 1999) Subject: EU special representatives and envoys and special coordinators 1. How many EU special representatives/envoys/coordinators are there, including both those who are active and those who have merely been appointed? Who are the individuals concerned? For what regions or countries are they responsible and to what extent do they cooperate with other international organisations? 2. What is the legal basis for the appointment of the above persons? What are their respective terms of office? Where are they based, or where are their activities centred? What financial and material resources does each have at his/her disposal (including the budget for travelling)? What is the size of their staff (list of posts)? 3. The appointment on 2 July 1999 of Mr Bodo Hombach as the EU Special Representative for the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe was due to expire on 31 July 1999 unless formally confirmed by a Joint Action pursuant to Article 2 of the relevant decision. Is the formal decision on the stability pact deemed such confirmation? 4. Why are there now two EU fora, existing side by side, for the stability process in South-Eastern Europe, namely (a) the Royaumont process under EU Special Representative P. Roumeliotis, based in Thessaloniki and with a budget of € 550 000 for May 1999 to May 2000, and (b) the stability pact under EU Special Representative B. Hombach, based in Brussels and with a budget of € 850 000 for 1999? How are the functions of the two fora differentiated, and to whom is each required to report and accountable (e. g. the new Mr CFSPí, J. Solana)?