WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Transposition of ICCAT recommendations.
Date: 2000-05-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of the law, conservation of fish stocks, drafting of EU law, international agreement

C 89 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

(2001/C 89 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1437/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Organisation for tuna fishing in the Western Pacific

(5 May 2000)

Negotiations are being conducted with a view to setting up an organisation for tuna fishing in the Western
Pacific, in which the Community is not involved, despite the interest of our fishing sector. However, the
Community has a special relationship with the countries in the region, in which it also has substantial
fishery interests.

Does the Commission intend to join the negotiations for the creation of this new regional organisation?
Why has it not yet done so?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

The Commission has been invited to participate as an observer at the 4th, 5th and 6th meetings of the
Multilateral High Level Conference (MHLC) on the conservation and management of highly migratory fish
stocks in the Central and Western Pacific.

At the fifth meeting of the conference the Commission obtained the inclusion in the draft text of the
the Community to the future
future convention of provisions allowing the future membership of
organisation.

At the last session of the conference, held in Honolulu from 12-19 April 2000, the Commission requested
its inclusion, as a full participant, at the next step of the process, that is, the interim arrangement that will
be set up to cover the period between signature of the Convention (in September 2000) and its entry into
force (likely to take two to three years). This request, however, was not accepted by the participants to the
conference, on the basis of the resolution adopted in 1999 to the effect of excluding new participants in
the MHLC process.

The Commission is currently examining possible initiatives to try to persuade MHLC participants of the
need and legitimacy of the Community(cid:146)s full participation in the interim regime of the MHLC process.

(2001/C 89 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Transposition of ICCAT recommendations

(10 May 2000)

The meeting of ICCAT in Santiago de Compostela in 1998 adopted a recommendation limiting the
maximum catch of albacore or long-finned tuna at current levels, since it is recognised as an almost fully
exploited species. Fishing capacity would be maintained at the level of recent years, with the number of
boats restricted to the average number operating in the period 1993-1995.

Although the Community promoted this proposal it has not transposed it into Community law and hence
has failed to comply with the recommendation. For this reason, at the ICCAT meeting in Rio de Janeiro
the Commission had to insist on the application of the recommendation although it had already been
adopted.

Is this ICCAT provision being transposed into Community law? Can the Commission ensure compliance
with it in the year 2000?

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/43

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission is in the process of adoption of a proposal for a regulation on technical measures for
highly migratory fish stocks, including provisions on the implementation of the International commission
for the conservation of Atlantic tunas (ICCAT) recommendation on the limitation of fleet capacity in the
albacore fishery.

In addition, and in order to implement the measure in question already in 2000, even before the formal
adoption of the said regulation by the Council, the Commission has addressed a letter to the concerned
Member States asking them to provide the necessary data to implement the measure. On the basis of the
information submitted by Member States, the Commission is proceeding to implement the limitation of
the number of vessels as established by ICCAT.

(2001/C 89 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1439/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Natura 2000 network and the structural funds

(10 May 2000)

In recent weeks we have seen a further example of the increasingly close and complex relationship
between the structural measures co-financed by the European Union and nature conservation.

On 16 March this year the Commission needed to define the links between the application of the
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the new period 2000-2006 and compliance with the
obligations deriving from Natura 2000.

The Natura 2000 network is one of the most powerful Community instruments for the application of
European environmental policy for nature conservation. It consists of a number of special areas protected
under the (cid:145)Habitats Directive(cid:146) (92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992) (1) and the (cid:145)Bird Directive(cid:146) (79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979) (2).

The Commission decision envisages a series of measures to ensure compliance with the Member States(cid:146)
obligations with regard to the areas protected by Natura 2000 (cid:129) the compulsory inclusion of clear and
irrevocable commitments concerning coherence between the network and the measures proposed in
programming documents (Community support frameworks, single programming documents or operational
programmes), specific monitoring of measures which may entail a risk for the protected areas and possible
on-the-spot checks, as well as careful examination by the Commission via the monitoring committees and
the possibility of taking action in the event of irregularities, leading to the suspension of payments.

According to this decision, can the Commission confirm whether, in the event of non-compliance with the
requirements of the Natura 2000 network, payment for structural measures envisaged for Objective 1
regions might be suspended? Can the Commission give any concrete examples of the cases in which
payment might be suspended?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1999, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

When the Commission approved the Community support framework for Portugal for the 2000-2006
programming period it discussed the linkage between the Structural Funds and compliance with the
Community Directives on the Natura 2000 network.