WRITTEN QUESTION E-3697/00 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Drift net fishing in the Baltic.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: by-catch, common fisheries policy, competence of the Member States, fishing net, marine mammal

C 174 E/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Such information will be made available to the Commission(cid:146)s scientific, technical and economic committee
for fisheries (STECF) that is going to convene a meeting on this issue in 2001.

STECF(cid:146)s report will be made available in accordance to Commission policy of public access to documents.

(2001/C 174 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3697/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Drift net fishing in the Baltic

The answer of 16 October 2000 to my question E-2584/00 (1) states that (cid:145)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(cid:146).

Will the Commission then state whether drift net fishing will continue to be legal in the Baltic after 2002,
and whether drift net fishing in general is recognised as a substantial cause of death to marine mammals
for example?

Does the Commission then consider that the isolated population in the Baltic of some 1 000 to 2 000
animals deserves special protection status?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 125.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2001)

interaction between fishing activities and marine mammals is complex, area-based, and
Unintentional
specific to fishing gear and practice. The intensity of the phenomenon is spatially and temporally highly
variable, depending among others factors from the seasonal abundance of marine mammals populations as
well as of the intensity of certain fisheries. Therefore the same fishing gear might interact with marine
mammals in a very different way in different localities.

The Commission makes use of the best scientific advice available to inform its action. The International
council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) is the scientific forum which gives advice on the Baltic Sea
and, for the time being, there is evidence that incidental catches of harbour porpoise is minimal because
the drift net fishery targeting salmon and the area of occurrence of porpoise only overlap to a small extent.

The measures adopted by the Council on the phasing out of drift nets (1), and of their prohibition from
2002, are not applicable in the Baltic given the special characteristics of the salmon fisheries of this sea
and, in addition, also because they are not used to target the species in Annex VIII of Regulation (EC) No
1239/98.

Provided that there are no changes in the scientific advice, there is no reason to foreseen any modification
of the current Regulation regarding drift nets in the Baltic.

The harbour porpoise, along with the other cetacean species, is included in Annex IV of the Habitats
Directive (2). The Community therefore recognises that they are species of Community interest in need of
strict protection.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/117

The Honourable Member is no doubt aware that it is the legal responsibility of the Member States to
implement these environmental and fishing rules and to ensure compliance with them.

(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) 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 174 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/00

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Porpoise by-catches

By letter dated 3 May 2000 the Commission was called upon by 41 organisations in 18 countries to
intervene against porpoise by-catches.

How did the Commission reply to this appeal, and does it intend to take the actions proposed therein?

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

(26 January 2001)

The concerns raised in the letter mentioned by the Honourable Member were brought to the attention of
Member States representatives at the June 2000 meeting of the Habitats committee, stressing their
seriousness. The problem of incidental catches of harbour porpoises was also dealt with at the October
2000 meeting of the Habitats committee.

As for the call for broadening the Commission(cid:146)s enquiries beyond the issue of Denmark(cid:146)s implementation
of Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (1), the Commission requested the sender to provide more detailed information. No
answer has been received yet.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 174 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Malawi

Would the Commission outline its response to the allegations of corruption made in the European press
against the Government of Malawi?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

The Commission services have been aware for some time of the apparently growing incidents of alleged
corruption in Malawi. They are also aware of the most recent allegations made in the European press,
focusing more particularly on the Government(cid:146)s intention to purchase 39 Mercedes Benz vehicles for
government ministers. This particular issue is viewed more as an instance of poor governance than as an
example of corruption.