WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Porpoise by-catches in the European fishing industry.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: by-catch, fishing net, fishing regulations, fishing rights, marine mammal, protected species, protection of animal life

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/125

(2001/C 113 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Porpoise by-catches in the European fishing industry

The signatories of the Ascobans agreement have undertaken to reduce by-catches to the lowest possible
level and at least to less than 2 % of the estimated stock. Present by-catches are above this level.

Ascobans regards porpoise by-catches as a potentially serious biological problem as both the size of stocks
and the extent of the by-catch are uncertain.

Which Member States are making by-catches of porpoise? Which Member States have devised and
implemented plans of action to reduce porpoise by-catches? What has the Commission done, and what
does it intend to do, to ensure that the provisions concerning by-catches in the habitats directive (Article
12(4)) are complied with?

Will the Commission also state what Denmark has done in Danish internal waters and the Baltic to
regulate fishing by zones and periods and whether it is sufficient to comply with the provisions of Article
12(4) of the habitats directive?

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

(16 October 2000)

The Commission welcomes all efforts to protect cetaceans and diminish porpoise by-catches. The
Honourable Member is no doubt aware that Community legislation already limits the size of drift nets
and prohibits their use from the start of 2002, with consequential benefits to cetacean populations.

It should be noted that the Community is not a party to the Agreement on the conservation of small
cetaceans of the Baltic and North Sea (Ascobans), and the targets adopted by the parties of this agreement
may differ from those of the Commission.

Porpoise populations are subject to natural population dynamics. The impact of the by-catch on the
population may vary in different parts of the distribution area, e.g. Baltic and North Sea. It is possible that,
from a scientific point of view, a general limit for by-catch to apply everywhere is not the best solution to
protect this species (1).

In general, very few facts on population dynamics and by-catch issues on the harbour porpoise are known
to the Commission. The Commission has supported several research projects and studies, tackling the issue
of interaction among marine mammals (mainly cetaceans) and fishing activities, which led to illumination
of the perceived problems.

Measures other than by-catch limits can have an impact on porpoise populations. As important as
reducing by-catch is safeguarding sites for breeding, resting and foraging for this species. The importance
of Natura 2000 sites designated for this species is currently being studied.

Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2)) includes obligations for the Member States to report every
six years on the implementation of the measures taken under the Habitats Directive. The Commission is
currently waiting for this information from the Member States including reporting on the measures for
reducing by-catches to comply with Article 12(4). Therefore, at the moment it is not possible to list those
Member States making by-catches which have a significant negative impact on the species concerned, as
this article states. It is also impossible at this moment to judge which Member States(cid:146) measures are
complying with the obligations of Article 12(4), or to speculate on possible future Commission measures.

C 113 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

However, the Commission is aware that the Danish authorities are currently monitoring incidental capture
and killing of harbour porpoise, and that they are carrying on research. Denmark has also informed the
Commission that they intend to continue conservation measures for porpoises.

At the Council of 16 June 2000, the member responsible for fishery expressed his deepest concern on this
and similar issues. To follow up, Member States will be contacted to request
information to the
Commission about actions they have taken or intend to take at national level.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain

technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, (OJ L 171, 17.6.1998).

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 113 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/00

by Willi G(cid:246)rlach (PSE), Heinz Kindermann (PSE), Albert Maat (PPE-DE),
Xaver Mayer (PPE-DE), Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE), Joseph Daul (PPE-DE)
and Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Refunds in connection with the export of pure-bred cattle to third countries

After earlier cuts in December 1999 and March 2000, on 13 May 2000 EU refunds for beef and veal, and
thus also for breeding cattle, were reduced once again. In the case of breeding cattle, the refunds have been
reduced by 5 %, 5 % and 20 % respectively, i.e. in figures from € 63 per 100 kg live weight (LW) in 1999
to € 46 per 100 kg LW since May of this year.

The reasons put forward for these reductions were the relatively high dollar exchange rate vis-(cid:224)-vis the
euro and relatively high beef and veal prices on the European internal market. However, transactions
involving the export of breeding cattle from the EU to Central and Eastern Europe, north Africa and the
Middle East are generally carried out in euros. As a result, a high dollar exchange rate is in no way
conducive to the export of breeding cattle.

The relatively high beef and veal prices on the internal market are in fact disadvantageous for exports of
breeding cattle. Dairy farmers in the EU are encouraged to use calves for the production of beef and veal,
rather than rearing them as heifers for export. Dairy farmers may even decide to have most cows in their
herds inseminated with sperm from beef cattle.

1.
Does the Commission acknowledge the significance of the export of breeding cattle from the EU in
maintaining a balance on the European beef and veal market and in improving dairy cattle stocks in the
importing countries in Central and Eastern Europe, north Africa and the Middle East?

2.
Can the Commission outline the impact of the reduction in refunds on exports of breeding cattle and
on producers of breeding cattle, taking into account the recently introduced slaughter premiums which are
also granted when breeding cattle are exported to third countries?

To what extent is the Commission prepared to take account of the specific situation of producers of

3.
breeding cattle in the EU when considering the issue of export refunds?

4.
Is it conceivable that refunds for the export of breeding cattle might be returned substantially to their
1999 level (€ 63 per 100 kg LW), minus the slaughter premium introduced in 2000 and the agreed
increase in that premium?