WRITTEN QUESTION E-0405/01 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Compliance with the Angola-EU fisheries agreement.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Angola, common fisheries policy, financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, fishing industry, satellite navigation, trade relations

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/109

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

(5 April 2001)

In answer to the Written Question P-1736/00 by the Honourable Member, (1) the Commission reported
that it was not informed of the matters raised by the Honourable Member. Given that the area in question,
(cid:145)Gandaras de Budiæo,(cid:146) was proposed as an area of Community interest (ES 1140011) by the Spanish
authorities,
the Commission had decided to launch an own-initiative investigation of these matters,
requesting confirmation from the Spanish authorities that Community law is being observed in this
particular case.
It has to be said, though, that, the Commission(cid:146)s launching of an its own-initiative
investigation in this instance does not in any way mean that there has been a breach of Community law.
Thus, in this case, the Commission cannot reach a decision until it receives more information about this
project from the Spanish authorities.

On the basis of information given by the Honourable Member on the pre-mentioned Written Question,
the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the matters raised; it has also asked
them for a copy of the environmental impact assessment on this project as well as a detailed description of
the types of habitats present in the area concerned.

The Commission has received a reply from the Spanish authorities regarding the project in question, which
is currently being examined.

However, it should be noted here and now that in their reply, the Spanish authorities point out that the
project has been subjected to an environmental impact assessment which declared it to be (cid:145)viable.(cid:146) They
also stress that even if the project does affect part of the area, the site itself is badly damaged and there are
no species and habitats on the site where the project is due to be carried out.

The Commission will ensure, no matter what happens, that the Community law applicable in this case is
observed.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 183.

(2001/C 261 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0405/01

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Compliance with the Angola-EU fisheries agreement

The government of Angola appears to be about to suspend the Angola-EU fisheries protocol, on the
grounds that the Commission has not paid the annual contribution referred to in the protocol and has not
complied with its condition concerning introduction of a (cid:145)satellite system(cid:146).

Given the serious political implications of suspension, as well as the adverse consequences for the fleets
fishing in Angolan waters, can the Commission provide detailed answers on the following points:

1.

the reasons for non-payment of the annual contribution and non-compliance with the condition
concerning introduction of a (cid:145)satellite system(cid:146)?

2.

the consequences of the above for relations with Angola?

3.

the implications for Member States(cid:146) fleets and the proposed means of dealing with this problem?

C 261 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2001)

The payment of the first instalment of the financial compensation due under the 2000/2002

1.
protocol to the Community/Angola Agreement should have taken place by 30 November 2000.

The negotiations, which started in January 2000, were only concluded in July 2000, after a third round.
The Commission informed the Angolan authorities, during the July round, that it would be difficult to
make any payment before 31 January 2001, but Angola insisted on mentioning in the protocol the
deadline of 30 November 2000 for the payment of the financial compensation.

As regards the satellite system, the Community is not at fault. The data which constitute the corner stone
of that system (co-ordinates for the Angolan Exclusive Economical Zone (EEZ) and contacts for the
Angolan Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC)) and without which it is impossible for it to work, had been
repeatedly requested from the Angolan authorities since July 2000, but were only received at the end of
January 2001, and in a format that does not allow for its direct application. Following their receipt, new
contacts have already been launched in order to obtain the information needed for the launch of the
system.

Despite the Commission(cid:146)s best efforts, the delay in the payment could not be avoided, and everything
2.
has been done with a view to guaranteeing the smoothest possible development of the longstanding
relations between the Community and Angola in the field of fisheries.

Although at the end of January 2001 Angola signalled to the Commission its readiness to suspend

3.
the protocol, that suspension never took place.

(2001/C 261 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR), Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR)
and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Fur animals in the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware of the recent decision taken by the Netherlands Government to ban the
1.
husbandry of fur animals in the Netherlands after a period of 10 years, without any compensation for the
fur producers?

Is it true, as the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture stated on 26 January 2001, that the European
2.
Commission has indicated that Member States have the right to determine such bans individually and that
the Commission has approved a precedent in the United Kingdom?

If the answers to the two preceding questions are in the affirmative, could the Commission indicate

3.
which articles of the European treaties allow Member States to take such measures?

4.
Does the Commission share the view that, where Member States determine such measures autono-
mously on the basis of ethical considerations, this would release those Member States from the obligation
to compensate the producers?

5. Would the Commission accept trade in fur products of EU or third-country origin being prohibited
in the Netherlands?