WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/00 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Mucilage in the Adriatic sea.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Adriatic Sea, Italy, common fisheries policy, competence of the Member States, fishery management, water pollution

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/141

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

More than a million young people have so far taken advantage of the Community programmes to study,
train and further their personal development in a Member State other than their own. This is a huge
success, but the Commission is aware of the need to maintain and strengthen the communication activities
in this area.

The Community programmes Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth are managed in accordance with the
subsidiarity principle.
In each participating Member State is appointed a national agency, which is
responsible for most of the contact with the potential participants in the programmes. The main priority
is given to ensuring that precise and operational information is available at the place where young people
already seek information on education and career questions, that is careers advisers at schools, and youth
information centres.

As a back up, the programmes are also promoted in communications activities directed to the general
public, by means such as the Internet, publications, and presentations at youth fairs.

With the recent launch of the new generation of programmes 2000-2006, the Commission is currently
making new agreements with national agencies, which will include a strengthening of communication
activities.

(2001/C 103 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) and Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Mucilage in the Adriatic sea

(13 July 2000)

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to deal with the mucilage emergency in the Adriatic
sea, a phenomenon which is damaging the operations of fishermen and tourist and business operators in
the region?

How does it intend to protect the fishing world, which has already been hit by numerous problems such as
expensive fuel, excessive penalties for violations of administrative rules and the fact that there has been no
rationalisation of the fisheries sector legislation, resulting in a single text?

Does the Commission intend to implement emergency measures?

In addition, is the Commission aware of problems connected with the biological rest period, which should
be implemented at various periods relating to the times of birth and growth of various types of fish in the
Adriatic and no longer, as is currently the case, at inconsistent and random periods laid down by decree?

Finally, what part will the Commission play in the setting of criteria for the distribution of assistance for
fishery products traders, in connection with the 1999 stoppage caused by the war?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The increased frequency and importance of mucilaginous algae blooms, during the last decades, in the
is the result of excessive input of nitrogen and phosphorus from intensive agriculture
Adriatic Sea,
(fertilisers) and from large urban populations, Milan in particular. Under certain conditions, the nitrogen
and phosphorus act as nutrients and stimulate the occurrence of vast quantities of marine plankton
(diatoms) which manifest themselves as this mucilage. The Commission has stimulated scientific research
into problems of this nature occurring in both the Adriatic and other areas to provide a basis for
establishing codes of good practice to reduce nutrient inputs to the sea.

C 103 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Under Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment (1) all urban
areas of more than 10 000 inhabitants should be equipped with means by which nitrogen and phosphorus
are removed from their wastewater emissions. Under Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (2) all
areas of intensive agriculture should be subject to efficient action programmes to reduce inputs of
nitrogen. The Commission is maintaining legal pressure on national authorities to ensure the correct
implementation of these measures.

The sanctions imposed on fishermen for violation of the conditions of fisheries protection regulations do
not lie within the competence of the Community but emanate from the Italian legal system rather than
from Community legislation. Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/4 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain
technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean (3) and subsequent
amendments specifies the conditions under which certain fishing activities should take place. Little can be
done at Community level with regard to the price of oil.

The conditions for biological closures are established under national legislation of which the Commission
is aware. If the Honourable Members consider that details of this legislation are inappropriate, they might
approach the Italian authorities to redraft the legislation and submit the redraft by accepted channels to
the Commission for perusal.

Under the current rules (Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the
detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (4)),
Member States can grant compensation for temporary suspensions of fishing due to unforeseen events on
the terms set out in Article 16 of that Regulation. However, budget resources for this type of intervention
are strictly limited and a Member State would have to assess the scale of the problem and judge what
priority such compensation should have. Finally, if it decides to grant compensation it must send the
Commission the relevant scientific justification beforehand.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.
(3) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994.
(4) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

Subject: Time limits for answers to parliamentary questions

(24 July 2000)

In view of the delayed replies from the Council to parliamentary questions numbers E-0570/00, E-0571/
00, E-0572/00, and E-0573/00 tabled on 14 February 2000, and number E-0917/00 tabled on 8 March
2000, would the Council please state its current policy on time limits for answering parliamentary
questions?

Reply

(7 November 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it answered this question when it replied to
Questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00 and P-1541/00. It reaffirms that it will maintain the balance described
on that occasion regarding the formulation of replies to questions put to it by Members of the European
Parliament.