WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/00 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Strategy of the DG for Fisheries in the Pacific.
Date: 2000-10-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Kiribati, Pacific Ocean, agreement (EU), conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing agreement, fishing fleet, international agreement

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/95

(2001/C 163 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3350/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Petrola(cid:146)s application for expansion

In May 1998, Petrola Ellas submitted its new investment programme to the Ministry of the Environment,
Public Works and Regional Planning, together with other ministries responsible, requesting authorisation
to set up a large number of new plants which will occupy an area of some 13 hectares (according to
company executives)
in the safety zone between the existing installations of the Petrola and Pyrkal
corporations. This expansion is allegedly in breach of many aspects of Greek law (Presidential Decree
791/81) and Community legislation, in particular Directives 85/337/EEC (1), 82/501/EEC (2) (the (cid:145)Seveso
directive(cid:146)) and 84/360/EEC (3).

Petrola is in fact situated in the immediate vicinity of the densely populated areas of Elefsina, Aspropirgos,
Magoula and Mandra, and the expansion will both increase the risk of an accident, since by expanding into
the safety zone, Petrola will also adjoin Pyrkal, as well as more than triple pollution levels in an already
environmentally spoiled area as fuel consumption will increase 3,4 times and the volume of gas emissions
will increase three-fold at least.

In the light of this information, will the Commission look into the above situation and ask Greece for
clarification? Instead of granting Petrola further authorisation to expand, would it not be better for the
Commission to contribute towards immediate measures to combat the pollution, discharges and stench
emanating from this refinery?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.

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

(14 December 2000)

In the light of various press articles, the Commission wrote to the Greek authorities on 7 June 2000
requesting information on the expansion of Petrola(cid:146)s installations. No reply has been forthcoming.

Following the question from the Honourable Member, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities
again to ask whether they have approved the expansion of Petrola(cid:146)s installations and what environmental
terms have been laid down.

(2001/C 163 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/00

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Strategy of the DG for Fisheries in the Pacific

At the MHLC 7 conference held from 20 August to 5 September 2000, the convention to be overseen by
the western Pacific tuna commission was signed by all the participating countries except Japan, South
Korea, France, China and Tonga.
In spite of the undertaking given by Director-General Smidt, the
Commission was not present at the conference. A further meeting is due to take place shortly, at which
it is hoped that the aforementioned countries will sign. The sector is unsure as to whether the EU is fully
involved in the MHLC process.

C 163 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The European fisheries sector is concerned both at the agreement of the DG for Fisheries to take a back
seat in the process of reaching fisheries agreements in the Pacific and at the stalled negotiations on
agreements with countries in the region. It is critical of the Commission(cid:146)s lack of interest and failure to
produce results.

Will the Commission say what aims and strategy it is pursuing in order to obtain fishing opportunities for
our fleet in the Pacific?

What steps is it taking to reach a fisheries agreement with Kiribati?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Since its third sitting in June 1998, the Commission has taken an active part in the (cid:145)Multilateral High Level
Conference(cid:146) (MHLC) meetings on behalf of the Community, in particular to express its wish to be fully
involved in the work and become a fully fledged member of the Convention on the Central and Eastern
Pacific. The Commission also asked to take part in the interim arrangement to be implemented whilst
waiting for the bodies laid down in the Convention to be established. In addition, the Community made
sustained efforts to convince the states taking part in the negotiations of its intention to cooperate and
make a positive contribution to the conservation and management of resources in the Western Central
Pacific.

The Commission is the first to regret that its efforts did not yield the expected results. At the 6th meeting
of the MHLC held in April 2000, the 16 members of the Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA), a regional
organisation which encompasses the Pacific island states, as well as Australia and New Zealand, adopted
a resolution. As the resolution excluded all new parties from the negotiation process of
the new
Convention, such as the interim arrangement, the Community was unable to continue its action. Under
these conditions, and since the 7th sitting of the MHLC in September 2000 to formally adopt the text of
the Convention had essentially been already agreed at the previous sitting, the Community considered that
there was no need for it to take part in this final sitting.

However, the Commission does not intend abandon efforts to contribute effectively to conservation and
resources management in the area, and to defend the interests of the Community fleet operating or that
might operate there. The Commission must also review its options and devise a strategy accordingly,
acting in compliance with its obligations under international maritime law. It will ensure that the Member
States and Parliament are informed of its proposals.

With regard to a possible bilateral agreement with Kiribati, and in light of the above, the Commission is
considering the details of the case and analysing the implications for the entire Western Central Pacific
region.

(2001/C 163 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3354/00

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Subject: Right of mobility for students

Article 149 of the Treaty on European Union defines and specifies the role of the European Union in the
field of education. The Union can and must supplement the action of the Member States in developing
their educational policies, with the aim of attaining a level of quality education for all citizens. Success in
this field is a pre-requisite for medium-and long-term economic well-being and social cohesion.

The declarations by the Lisbon European Council of 23/24 March supporting European education as an
important means of achieving a more competitive and dynamic economy, lasting economic growth with
better jobs in larger numbers and greater social cohesion should be seen as tying in precisely with this aim.