do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/01 by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission. Fishing fleet overcapacity.
Date: 2001-02-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing fleet, fishing industry, over-exploitation of resources

C 235 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

(2001/C 235 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fishing fleet overcapacity

The Commission estimates that the EU fleet is at least 40 % too large for the available resources. What
plans will the Commission propose to tacklet this serious problem?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-176/01 and E-0209/01
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2001)

According to the reports of two groups of independent experts set up to advise the Commission during
preparation of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleet (MAGP), fishing mortality rates
on the fish stocks in European waters are excessive. The figure of 40 % is typical of the reduction in fishing
mortality that would be required to manage the fish stocks on a sustainable basis.

In response to the conclusions of the expert groups, the Commission proposed substantial cuts in fishing
effort for both the MAGP III (1992-1996) and the MAGP IV (1997-2001). However on both occasions the
reductions originally proposed by the Commission were considered by the Council to be too severe.

The reductions in effort achieved during the MAGP III and the MAGP IV were not sufficient to counteract
the effects of technological progress, which tends to make the fleet more efficient with time. In view of
this, the Commission considers that the European fleet remains much too large for the available resources.

The Commission intends to tackle this problem by proposing further permanent reductions in fishing
effort following the MAGP IV.

(2001/C 235 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Fleet renewal and overcapacity

The OECD estimates that € 1,3 billion was spent in 1997 to subsidise the European fisheries sector. A large
proportion of this was used for fleet renewal and modernisation. Considering the large overcapacity of the
EU fleet, does the Commission consider that this was money well spent and what safeguards are in place
to make sure that the funds are not used to fuel overcapacity?

(2001/C 235 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/01

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Fleet renewal and overcapacity

The OECD estimates that € 1,3 billion was spend in 1997 to subsidise the European fisheries sector. A large
proportion of this was used for fleet renewal and modernisation. Considering the large overcapacity of the
EU fleet, does the Commission consider that this was money well spent? What safeguards are in place to
make sure that the funds are not used to fuel overcapacity?
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0305/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Inclement weather in Portugal.
Date: 2001-02-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, bad weather, emergency aid

C 174 E/258

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 174 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0305/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Subject: Inclement weather in Portugal

Portugal has recently been afflicted by severe storms which have had effects including deaths,
displacement of numerous households, and substantial repercussions for economic activity in general.

the

Numerous infrastructures have been affected: homes have been destroyed, localities have been cut off,
transport routes including roads and rail
lines have been interrupted, electricity and communications
networks have suffered cuts, and harbours and ports have had to close.

Industry, commercial activity, agriculture and fisheries have been heavily affected, with estimated losses
already running into billions of escudos.

the above, can the Commission state what emergency measures it

In view of
in
cooperation with the Portuguese government and local authorities, to combat the effects of these dramatic
circumstances in Portugal?

intends to take,

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0099/01 by
Mr Casaca during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s February I 2001 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (February 2001).

(2001/C 174 E/281)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Treatment of naval war graves

What enquiries has the European Commission made about arrangements in the Member States for
ensuring respect for naval war graves? Will it bring forward proposals for EU-wide standards and for
promoting broader international standards?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 233/2001 of 2 February 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2283/2000
Date: 2001-02-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, export refund, rice, third country

L 34/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.2.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 233/2001

of 2 February 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A
rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2283/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22
December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in
rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000 (2),
and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the rice in question results
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
amount specified in Article 1.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
issued pursuant
2283/2000 (3).

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/
75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/95 (5),
allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a
maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the
criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is
awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less
than the maximum export refund.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled grain, medium
grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third
countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regula-
tion (EC) No 2283/2000 is hereby fixed on the basis of the
tenders submitted from 26 January to 1 February 2001 at
237,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 February 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 260, 14.10.2000, p. 13.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.