WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Industrial fishing.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, North Sea, authorised catch, common fisheries policy, environmental impact, industrial fishing

C 203 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

(2000/C 203 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1564/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Commission recovery orders

For years the Commission has been requesting reimbursement from recipients of Community funds who
have not complied with the rules on the use of such funds.

Can the Commission say how many recovery orders per project are pending and how long each recovery
procedure has been going on?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

In the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet the Commission provides information about
debt recovery in relation to (cid:145)sundry debts(cid:146), i.e. all debts other than own resources. An extract from the
revenue and expenditure account (pages 38 to 43 of Volume I, Part 1) is being sent to the Honourable
Member and Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

As there are a great many debts outstanding, this information can only be taken as an overview, with a
breakdown by major area of activity.

(cid:145)Sundry debts(cid:146) comprise general debts and debts giving rise to a recovery procedure for failure to comply
with the rules on the use of Community funds. As regards the second of these categories, a distinction
needs to be made between debts arising out of direct Commission expenditure (managed directly by the
Commission), where recovery is carried out by the Commission(cid:146)s own departments, and debts arising out
of other expenditure, where recovery is initiated by the Member States.

With the present reporting system under Sincom2, there is no way of conducting an individual and
ongoing analysis of progress on all the Commission(cid:146)s projects and the debts associated with them.

The Commission is able to trace the history of each debt and identify the debts associated with each
particular project. The amount of research needed to answer the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions in detail,
however, would be out of proportion to the result which they seek to achieve and would go beyond the
limits of a reply to a written question.

(2000/C 203 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Industrial fishing

In view of the recent explosion in industrial fishing in the North Sea (cid:129) for example, Denmark increased its
fishmeal production from 16 000 tonnes in 1986 to 320 000 tonnes in 1994 (cid:129) does not the Commission
feel that, on environmental and ecological grounds, the quotas should be reduced?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 1999)

The Commission does not consider that there has been an outburst of industrial fisheries from 1986 to
1994. Figures submitted by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) indicate a rather
stable fishery, only subject to natural fluctuations in the availability of target stocks.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/9

industrial fisheries by Community vessels in the
Since the inception of the common fisheries policy,
Northeast Atlantic have always been subject to management rules. These rules include nowadays limitation
of catches by TACs (total allowable catches), covering all species targeted for industrial purposes. TACs are
fixed annually by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission which is based on the most recent and
relevant scientific advice. Scientific advice takes into account environmental and ecological aspects.

Whenever scientific evidence will suggest that TACs should be reduced in order to ensure that fishing
activities are carried out at a sustainable level, the Commission will certainly issue a proposal for a Council
regulation to adapt TACs and quotas accordingly. The Commission will also evaluate in parallel the need
to propose further management measures as appropriate.

(2000/C 203 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Failure by Greece to give notification of waste management programmes

The Commission has decided to initiate proceedings before the European Court against Greece for failure
to give notification of waste management programmes in accordance with Directives 75/442 (1), 91/689 (2)
and 94/62 (3). Greece has now provided information concerning waste management within its territory.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it know the reasons for the delay by Greece in announcing its programmes?

2. What view does it take of the information provided by Greece?

3.

Is Greece complying with the provisions of the above directives and, if not, in which areas is it out of
line?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 1999)

Having noted that Greece had not reported waste management programmes, in infringement of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
dangerous wastes, and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging, the Commission
has initiated infringement proceedings against Greece. As part of those proceedings the Greek authorities
notified the Commission of a draft plan in December 1998. During a bilateral meeting in May 1999 the
Commission commented to the Greek authorities on the gaps in the draft waste management plan. In the
absence of any reaction from the Greek authorities the Commission decided to lay the matter before the
Court of Justice on 1 July 1999.

On 31 August 1999 the Greek authorities passed on their comments concerning those made by the
Commission on the draft waste management plan without, however, amending that draft.

The Commission has not been given any specific reasons for the delay in drawing up the waste
management plans in Greece. The Commission is anxious to point out that infringement proceedings are
also in progress against 12 other Member States as a result of a delay in sending waste management plans.