WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Countering the unintended catching of marine mammals by ensuring strict compliance with, and if necessary improving, existing protection measures.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: by-catch, common fisheries policy, marine mammal

C 151 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

This aid should be maintained for a further five years (until the end of the 2005/2006 year), so that there
is sufficient time to prepare a specific project for the sector with the aim of improving structural aspects of
holdings and increasing productivity of crops.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2000)

Since the establishment of the common market organisation for the sugar sector in 1968, Italy has been
authorised to grant national adjustment aid for improving the conditions under which sugar beet and
sugar are produced. These aids have in particular been intended to improve the structural conditions under
which sugar beet is grown in the southern region.

National aids in general have always been considered to be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the
objectives to be achieved by agricultural common market organisations. On the other hand, the regular
renewals of the authorisation to Italy to continue granting these aids in the sugar sector have demonstrated
both the gravity of the structural difficulties involved and the goodwill of the Council, the Parliament and
the Commission in seeking to achieve an improvement in the conditions for the sugar beet growers
directly concerned.

The last reform of the common market organisation for the sugar sector adopted in 1995 by Council
Regulation (EEC) no 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) no 1785/81 on the common
organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation (EEC) no 1010/86 laying down general rules
for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (1) provided, however,
that Italy should be granted only one further authorisation concentrating on the most critical situation of
sugar beet cultivation, with a view to finally phasing out these national adjustment aids during the lifetime
of the current production quota system which expires on 30 June 2001.

Subsequently the Council, after consulting the Parliament, has adopted Council Regulation (EC) no 2613/
97 of 15 December 1997 authorizing Portugal to grant aid to sugar beet producers and abolishing all
State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year (2) which clearly provides that all national aids authorised by
the common market organisation for the sugar sector are to be abolished with effect from 1 July 2001
onwards. In these circumstances, the Commission has not foreseen any new measures along the lines
suggested by the Honourable Members in its recent proposal on the next production quota and other
arrangements to apply in the sugar sector (3).

(1) OJ L 110, 17.5.1995.
(2) OJ L 353, 24.12.1997.
(3) COM(2000) 604 final.

(2001/C 151 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Countering the unintended catching of marine mammals by ensuring strict compliance with, and if

necessary improving, existing protection measures

Is the Commission aware that, every year, thousands of marine mammals such as dolphins die as a

1.
result of accidentally getting into fishing nets as (cid:145)by-catches(cid:146), even though they are not being fished for?

Can the Commission confirm that marine mammals are protected under the Berne Convention, the

2.
Bonn Convention and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) and come under Annex I to CITES?

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/171

Is the Commission aware that, over the past 10 years, it has funded 20 research projects dealing with
3.
the problem of (cid:145)by-catches(cid:146) and that, despite extremely clear evidence of a serious problem, Member States
are continuing to carry out research instead of finally fulfilling their obligations on the basis of the
Habitats Directive?

4.
Does the Commission recall Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment, which states that,
(cid:145)In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation(cid:146). And is the Commission aware that some Member States are not yet applying
this precautionary approach in the area of fisheries?

Is the Commission aware that

5.
the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) states that the basis for any successful international, regional or national initiative
with regard to protection of the environment is a consensus underpinned by the law, and that the United
States and New Zealand have solved the problem of (cid:145)by-catches(cid:146) of marine mammals to a large extent by
implementing this strategy?

the 1999 Annual Report of

6.
Is the Commission prepared to take action to actually resolve this problem of by-catches of marine
mammals by, for example, taking measures under the Common Fisheries Policy to make it impossible for
marine mammals to be caught accidentally by European fishermen or to reduce such catches to a
minimum?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Commission is well aware of the problem of incidental catches of marine mammals, mainly

1.
small cetaceans, and shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s concern.

The Commission is well aware of the international agreements and conventions to protect and
2.
conserve marine mammals. Community law has been conceived to take into consideration all
the
provisions foreseen within international agreements and conventions regarding nature conservation that
have been ratified till now.

3.
Research on marine mammal incidental catches supported by the Community has thrown light on
the problem. However, none of the studies are conclusive about measures to prevent or reduce incidental
catches or the relative importance of mortality rates compared to population sizes. Further research is
needed.

The adoption of the precautionary principle represents progress towards sustainable development but
4.
strategies, tools, targets and benchmarking are not yet clearly defined for marine ecosystems and the
human activities exploiting them. There is still scientific debate on the precise formulation of a practical
approach for the implementation of the precautionary principle. Taking measures to ensure the survival of
marine mammals goes beyond just avoiding negative interactions between fisheries and these animals. It
also implies trying to protect the marine environment as a whole. In fact, in addition to interactions with
fishermen,
there are many other causes of cetacean death and strandings. They cannot always be
determined with certainty but include marine pollution, acoustic disturbance (shipping, seismic surveys,
clearing shipwrecks, high-speed ferries, acoustic systems developed for military purposes) and mortality
generated by epidemics.

5. and 6.
The Commission will explore all realistic solutions to mitigate the problem. However, before
new legislation, proper implementation of existing Community provisions is necessary. Member States play
a very important role in the definition and implementation of both environmental and fisheries measures
as well in their control. In particular, under the Habitats Directive (1) Member States should implement the
requirements of Articles 11 and 12.4 dealing with the surveillance and monitoring of fishing activities
associated with by-catches of cetaceans. It is the legal responsibility of Member States to implement these
rules and to ensure compliance with them. The Commission reminded Member States of their obligation
to propose sites which will form part of the Natura 2000 network for cetacean species included in Annex II
of the Habitats directive.

C 151 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Community fisheries legislation already includes a ban on the use of drift nets, a prohibition on encircling
mammals with the purpose of catching tuna and a prohibition on fishing for sandeels in areas where they
constitute a major food item for marine life.

The Commission considers that a dolphin-free fishery might be an unrealistic goal in several fisheries,
while a dolphin-safe fishery could be an objective to be firmly pursued. To this end, the Commission has
asked its scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries to convene a meeting in 2001 on the
issue of incidental catches of small cetaceans. The Commission has also requested from the International
council for the exploration of the sea as soon as possible during 2001 an overview of fisheries that have
impact on small cetaceans, an assessment of the risks created by fisheries on identified
significant
populations and advice on possible remedial actions to reduce the impact of fishing.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

(OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2001/C 151 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3438/00

by Minerva Malliori (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified organisms

Public opinion was very alarmed by the recent discovery of genetically modified maize in food which is
freely available for sale in the USA (Kellogg(cid:146)s and Taco Bell products): it is banned for human consumption
owing to the fact that it produces an insecticide substance to protect the crop. Moreover, the cultivation
and marketing of such products are banned in many EU countries.

In view of this, will the Commission say whether the products in question are being imported into EU
countries and, if so, which countries? Are spot checks being carried out on imported products and how
effective are they? Does it intend to make the labelling of such products compulsory and to draw up a
code of conduct to be respected by companies in the interests of consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The question concerns the recent discovery of some food products in the United States containing traces of
the genetically modified maize variety called (cid:145)Star Link(cid:146). Star Link maize has been approved by the
American Environmental protection agency (EPA) for industrial and feed use, but not for use in food for
human consumption because of uncertainties regarding its potential allergenicity.

Star Link maize has not been approved for cultivation or food use in the Community and foodstuffs
containing traces of Star Link maize can therefore not be legally imported into the Community. Member
States are responsible for the control and inspection of
including imported food. The
Commission has not received any information from Member States suggesting that traces of Star Link
maize have been found in imported products.

foodstuffs,

Labelling requirements apply to genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs, which have been approved for
marketing in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of
27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1). The Commission does not
consider it appropriate to label products which have not obtained Community approval.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.