WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3625/98 by Niels SINDAL to the Commission. Failure of certain Member States to implement obligations under MAGP III
Date: 1998-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, SINDAL
Subjects: Community fisheries, EU programme, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom, fishing fleet













EUR-Lex - 91998E3625 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3625

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3625/98 by Niels SINDAL to the Commission. Failure of certain Member States to implement obligations under MAGP III  


Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0093 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3625/98by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission(24 November 1998)Subject: Failure of certain Member States to implement obligations under MAGP IIIWith reference to the answer given by Mrs Bonino on 21 October 1998 to Question E-2623/98(1) on the failure of certain Member States to implement obligations under MAGP III:1. What special steps have the French authorities taken, and with what result?2. Does the Commission have more recent data showing that the UK is now meeting the MAGP objectives?3. What exactly are the "steps being taken by the Dutch authorities?"4. What precisely has the Commission done to fulfil its promise, given to Parliament in spring, that it would scrutinise the figures from the Netherlands and even carry out inspections to ensure that there is full supporting evidence for the historical data in the fleet records?5. Has the Commission given consideration to actually carrying out the threat it made to take legal action against MAGP cheats?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission(18 January 1999)1. The French authorities implemented a scheme of permanent withdrawal during 1998 that resulted in a considerable reduction of the capacity of the fleet. The current situation of the French fleet is now within the global objectives of its multiannual guidance programme (MAGP III).2. The data in the fishing fleet register indicate that the United Kingdom is now within the global objectives for the end of 1996, which were revised at the start of the MAGP IV on the basis of improved historical data on fleet capacity. The situation of the fleet with respect to the new MAGP IV segment objectives is not yet available in the fleet register. This is due to the delay in the adoption of the MAGP IV and the consequent delay in specifying codes for the MAGP IV segmentation. However according to the data supplied by the United Kingdom, at the end of 1997 the tonnage objectives had been met in 4 of the 9 segments of the fleet and the power objectives in 5 of the 9 segments.3. The Netherlands is one of six Member States that have opted to achieve the MAGP IV objectives through a mixture of capacity and activity limitations, as provided in Council Decision 97/413/EC which fixed the guidelines for the programmes. New legislation has been introduced in the Netherlands to ensure that sea time can be adjusted to be in line with Community rules and the objectives of the programme.4. The Netherlands authorities have been co-operating closely with the Commission in order to establish a more accurate historical record of the fleet. Numerous missions to the Netherlands have been completed, at which all the historical data were made available for analysis. Proposals for the modification of the programme for the Netherlands have been prepared and are currently the subject of bilateral discussions. A modified programme will be adopted early in 1999 after the management committee for fisheries and aquaculture has given its opinion.5. According to the report to the Council and the Parliament on the results of the MAGP covering the period until the end of 1997, to be published in the very near future, only two Member States, France and the Netherlands, had not fulfilled the MAGP III objectives by that date. France has since achieved those objectives and, as mentioned above, discussions are continuing with the Netherlands on the proposed modifications to its programme. The Commission will examine the legal implications of the modifications before deciding what further action should be taken.(1) OJ C 182, 28.6.1999.