WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Threat to dolphins by fishing practices.
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Spain, common fisheries policy, marine mammal, protection of animal life

C 53 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

(2001/C 53 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Marketing of grape juices (DG Competition)

At present there are no legal Community limits on the percentages of natural glycerol which may be
contained in grape juices.

The only limit (Regulation (EC) No 822/87 (1)) concerns the presence of alcohol in the finished product.

According to a private German institution, GFL (the Berlin-based Gesellschaft f(cid:252)r Lebensmittelforschung
mbH), however, grape juices produced in Italy contain a percentage of glycerol which is (cid:145)above permitted
levels(cid:146).

The GFL allegations constitute a non-tariff barrier to freedom of trade within the EU and patently conflict
with the principles of the single market.

Given the above, does the Commission not intend to take immediate action to ensure that Italian-produced
grape juices are not effectively barred from the German market?

(1) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

Production and marketing requirements for fruit juices and certain similar products are set by Council
Directive 93/77/EEC of 21 September 1993 (1), Article 1 of which defines fruit juice and fruit. No
maximum limit is set for glycerol in grape juice nor is its addition to fruit juices authorised.

The remarks of the private German organisation have no official or regulatory force as far as conformity of
grape juice with Community marketing rules is concerned.

The German authorities have not notified the Commission of any restriction or ban on marketing of Italian
grape juice and the Commission has accordingly contacted them to seek clarification. It will not fail to take
any appropriate action under Article 226 (formerly 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 244, 30.9.1993.

(2001/C 53 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Threat to dolphins by fishing practices

What assessment has the Commission made of the threat to dolphins caused by the use of pelagic nets by
French and Spanish fishing vessels, and what action does it intend to take to prevent the avoidable killing
of dolphin in this way?

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/43

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission is aware of the problem and shares the concern of the Honourable Member at the
incidental capture of dolphins in certain pelagic fishing activities.

However, the Commission would first of all point out that Spanish fishing vessels are not allowed to use
pelagic trawls due to the provisions of Spanish legislation.

By-catches of cetaceans by midwater trawls are nevertheless a major concern for the Commission and
involve several Member States, mainly in Northern Europe including France.

For this reason the Commission has supported several research projects and studies on interaction between
marine mammals (mainly cetaceans) and fishing activities, both in Atlantic and North Sea areas as well as
in the Mediterranean. As an example, the most recent study approved for funding entitled (cid:145)Automated
detection of dolphins around pelagic trawls(cid:146),
is being conducted by the Royal society for nature
conservation and is expected to be finalised by 31 July 2001.

Research and studies cannot be sufficient. The Commission on the basis of the results of the above-
mentioned studies and all other available information, will consider all possibilities for tackling effectively
this problem. These include co-ordination of national policies, improvement of scientific knowledge and
proposal of improved measures on control of by-catches.

(2001/C 53 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/00

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Individual procedures followed by Member States with regard to the allocation of ERDF funds

EU Member States that wish to obtain cofinancing under the Structural Funds are required to consult the
competent local authorities and then submit applications to the Commission.

The applications must meet certain criteria laid down in regional (cid:145)single programming documents(cid:146) (SPDs)
which are subsequently approved by the Commission.

In following such a procedure, the Commission places emphasis on the principles of coordination and
partnership, which are a cornerstone of Community regional policy.

A key factor in the recognition of the role played by the European Union in regional development is the
transparent management of funds. This transparency is reflected by the annual publication of the report on
the Structural Funds, the drawing up of a balance sheet for each Objective and the regular publication of
the (cid:145)Inforegio(cid:146) newsletter.

However, ignorance of the internal fund-distribution and fund-management procedures instituted by the
Member States could make it difficult to acquire an overall picture of EU regional policy.

The time has come for the EU to publish a document identifying internal procedures for the defining of
eligible areas and for the management and allocation of EU Structural Fund resources.

Could a document of this kind be made available to Members of the European Parliament, since it is
essential in order to become acquainted with, and to compare, the procedures favoured by each Member
State, and consequently to increase public awareness of the advantages of the Structural Funds?