92002E2486

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Captive market in salmon

The EC's trading relations with third countries in the salmon sector are characterised by the defence of the interests of a group of Community producers who enjoy a captive market for their products, at the expense of the Community's consumers, who have to pay artificially high prices for salmon from Norway, the Faeroe Islands and Chile (the EU has recently signed an association agreement with the last-named country). These producers now aim to prolong their privileged status by laying unfounded charges of dumping on their third-country competitors and imposing tariffs on salmon from Chile and the Faeroe Islands as a means of reducing the unpopularity of their products among consumers in the EC.

In what ways has the market been affected by the agreement signed by the Commission with Norway in 1997 valid for five years and due to expire on 1 July 2002 on minimum prices for imports of Norwegian salmon? Can the Commission confirm that there will be no renewal of the minimum price clause, which works against the interests of Community consumers by making salmon artificially expensive?

What action does the Commission intend to take to defend the interests of consumers in the Community and allow them free access to salmon from Chile, the Faeroe Islands, etc, given that this would be in the interests of competition and product quality?

Does the Commission not consider that the virtual restriction of the Community market to Scottish and Irish producers has resulted in a prevalence of low-quality salmon in the Community, while Chilean salmon, by contrast, is not affected environmental problems?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

As concerns the opening of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Chile and the Faeroe Islands, it should first be recalled that any anti-dumping complaint brought before the Commission has to include prima facie evidence of dumping by imports from third countries, injury to the Community industry and of the causal link between the two. In addition, the Commission is obliged to carry out a preliminary assessment of the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the complaint and seek the opinion of the Advisory Committee composed of representatives of the Member States before a proceeding is initiated. These measures are designed to ensure that only legitimate complaints result in the opening of formal proceedings. All these conditions were fulfilled for the opening of the above-mentioned anti-dumping proceeding therefore it cannot be said that the charges by the Community industry of dumping were unfounded. It should also be noted there are no measures in place against imports from either Chile or the Faeroe Islands since the investigation was initiated only in July 2002.

The only trade defence measures currently in force in the Community for this product are those imposed in 1997 on imports originating in Norway consisting of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties underpinned by a system of minimum import price undertakings accepted from individual exporters. In parallel to these measures, the so called EU-Norway Salmon Agreement was signed in 1997 by the Commission and the Norwegian authorities and provides for, inter alia, the levying of an export tax of 3 % by the Norwegian

government (which can be increased if export volumes exceed certain levels) and regular consultations between both sides. It should be stressed that neither the measures (duties and undertakings) nor the Salmon Agreement restrict the quantity of Atlantic salmon originating in Norway that can be imported into the Community. Therefore, they do not create a captive market for the Community industry. Indeed, statistics show that the total import volume into the Community of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in various third countries represented around 70 % of the total Community market during the last five years.

In February 2002 after consultations with the Norwegian authorities concerning price developments for salmon on Community market, the Commission, on its own initiative, initiated a review of the existing measures. The duties and undertakings remain in force pending the outcome of this review, as will the Salmon Agreement, which was extended by the mutual consent of the Norwegian government and the Commission. Definitive findings are scheduled for next year.

The two above-mentioned investigations in which the Commission is currently engaged will both examine whether unfair trade practices have occurred and, if so, whether these have caused injury to the Community industry. If it is the conclusion of these investigations that trade defence measures are warranted, proposals will be made as appropriate. In the case of Norway, the question of minimum import prices would also be re-examined. It should be noted that measures cannot be applied where it is shown that they would be contrary to the overall interest of the Community. The assessment as to whether the Community interest calls for intervention has to based on an appreciation of the various interests of all parties directly concerned, including those of the processing industry and consumers. However, it should be recalled that it is not within the remit of anti-dumping proceedings to give judgements on the comparative quality of salmon of different origins, nor to examine specific environmental aspects.