WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Objectives of the study of supplies of tuna loins.
C 53 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 It was agreed during the Ornis meeting not to list these sub-species as a priority for LIFE funding. The priority list is exclusively determined with reference to the list in Annex I, which only refers to the species Tetrao urogallus. However, it was also made clear during the meeting that this does not preclude the submission of a LIFE application for the conservation of these sub-species. If such an application met the necessary conditions for LIFE, including the requirement that site-based project areas are classified as special protection areas (SPAs), it would be seriously examined by the Commission. Unfortunately, it appears that the level of protection of the sub-species in SPAs is at present low. (2001/C 53 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/00 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Objectives of the study of supplies of tuna loins (7 April 2000) The Council asked the Commission to conduct a study of needs as regards supplies of tuna loins to the Community market. According to the document released by the Commission which provides a summary of the study, the objective was indeed to assess supplies of tuna loins. However, the opening paragraph of the chapter containing recommendations begins by stating that the studyís focus lies in ascertaining the means of helping the Italian industry to remain competitive. Will the Commission say what the ultimate objective of the study actually was? Does it consider it ethical that this study, financed from public funds and responding to a specific request from the Council, should have in fact served as a means of establishing the needs of certain undertakings in a Member State? If these undertakings wish to determine the weaknesses in their ability to compete with other enterprises in the Member States, should they not commission a study of their own? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000) On the first point, would the Honourable Member please refer to the Commissionís joint answer to Written Questions E-756/00 to E-761/00 by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (1). The Commission considers that the studyís analysis and conclusions both served a balanced purpose. The analysis covers the main Member States which produce and consume the product in question (as well as third countries) and the recommendations relate to all market participants, both in the short and medium term. The assertion that the study served to ascertain the needs of certain businesses in one Member State is incorrect, since ü far from concentrating on operators in a single Member State ü it took a detailed look at the situation of the main firms in all the Member States involved: seven in Spain, five in Italy and four in France. In answer to the last point, the Commission would stress that it carried out the study in response to a request from the Council and not from the firms concerned. (1) OJ C 26 E 26. 1. 2001, p. 104