WRITTEN QUESTION P-1527/00 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Cockle fishing.
Date: 2000-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, biotope, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, mollusc, protection of animal life

C 89 E/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

The total amounts allocated to Portugal and actually transferred though the structural measures and

3.
the Community(cid:146)s internal policies in the period 1994-1999 are:

Programme

Modernisation of the economy
The Azores (Pedraa II)
Madeira (Popram II)
I. C. PESCA
Controls
Offshore coastal fishing

Allocated

197 762 000
25 945 000
15 200 000
29 868 000
33 138 919
648 346

(€)

Transferred

181 563 400
15 148 200
8 736 400
8 778 000
9 221 777
527 250

(2001/C 89 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1527/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Cockle fishing

The effects of cockle fishing have been a topic of discussion in the Netherlands for years. Cockles are an
important food source for oyster-catchers, eider ducks, greenshanks, avocets and other long-legged waders.
Oyster-catchers have declined in number in recent years and this winter there was a sudden and as yet
unexplained large number of deaths among eider ducks. Furthermore, there are strong indications that
cockle fishing is having long-term effects on sediment management in the Wadden Sea (1).

Cockle fishing takes place in the Wadden Sea, which is listed as a protected area under the Wild Birds
Directive and as a special protection zone under the Habitats Directive.

Since 1998 a quota of 10 000 tonnes of cockle meat has been in place. This figure is higher that the
amount ever fished. From 1984 to 1997 inclusive, the average catch was 4000 tonnes. Only in 1998 was
it significantly higher at 9 338 tonnes.

Fisheries policy in the Netherlands is laid down in the 1993 regional economic plan for sea and coastal
fishing, which is supplemented by a 1999 policy decision. Under the relevant provisions, fishing is
prohibited in 26 % of the Wadden Sea. In addition, the shellfish sector has drawn up its own management
plan for the area in which fishing is allowed, and where it has closed a further 5 %. In the remaining area.
i.e. 69 % of the Wadden Sea, fishing is virtually free of restrictions.

In Denmark there is hardly any cockle fishing any more and in Germany none whatsoever.

Does the Commission consider that cockle fishing has expanded to such an extent that it should be listed
as a new activity within the meaning of the Wild Birds and Habitats directives?

Does it consider that, if the existing activities cause significant damage, the policy should be adapted to
allow the area to recover?

Should compensation be provided and, if so, in what form?

Does it consider that cockle fishing is damaging the habitats of protected birds and biotopes such as
mussel beds and sea grass meadows?

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, is cockle fishing damaging the mudflats and thus the future food supply?

The agreement between the government and the cockle fishermen is that 60 % of the food requirements of
birds in the Wadden Sea is reserved for the birds. Does the Commission consider that 60 % is adequate
given the fact that there are scarcely no other sources of supply in the Wadden Sea and those that exist are
declining in volume and quality?

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/51

Does the Commission think that cockle fishing is, or may be, in breach of the Wild Birds and Habitats
directives?

(1)

J. Van de Kam, B. Ens, T. Piersma and L. Zwarts (1999), Ecologische atlas van de Nederlandse wadvogels (Ecological
Atlas of Dutch waders), Schuyt en Co, Haarlem. A. Koolhaas, T. Piersma and J. M. van den Broeck (1998), Kokkel-
en mosselvisserij beschadigen het wadleven, (Cockle and mussel fishing damage life on the mudflats) De levende
Natuur 99, 254-260. T. Piersma, A. Dekinga and A. Koolhaas (1993), Een kwetsbare keten: modder, nonnetjes en
kanoeten bij Griend, (A vulnerable chain: mud, smew and knots on mudbanks) Waddenbulletin 28: 144-149.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

Cockle fishing is not covered by the common fisheries policy and it is very unlikely that it will become so
in the foreseeable future. Cockles exist as localised stocks of interest to one Member State and thus it
appears more appropriate that the Member State concerned manages the fishery.

The Wadden Sea has been designated as a special protection area (SPA) within the meaning of Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and has been proposed as an
area of special Community interest (SCI) within the meaning of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2) as well.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of that Directive apply to a SPA.

According to Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC the Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid
in a SPA the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the
species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in
relation to the objectives of the Directive.

This provision applies to existing activities in a SPA that may have an impact on the conservation status of
the bird populations. Its application may imply that such activities must be changed or ended.

New plans or projects that may have implications for the conservation status of the bird populations are
covered by Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC. On the basis of the information available to it,
the Commission is not able to judge whether those provisions also apply to the new shellfish fisheries in
the Wadden Sea.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 89 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Rat poison Ratin and salmonella

According to its manufacturers, Rentokil of London (1), salmonella cultures were used in the rat poison
Ratin. The manufacturer has revealed to the newspaper Politiken that the poison was exported from
England to the Spanish and Italian markets right up until 1992.

The product was removed from the Danish market as early as 1961 amid fears of the spread of salmonella.

In the light of this situation, will the Commission say:

(cid:129) whether it was lawful to produce, export and use Ratin right up to 1992,