WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/01 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Economic forecasts.
Date: 2001-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, economic forecasting, euro, exchange rate, macroeconomics, national currency, petroleum

C 350 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

According to the information supplied by the WRFB, it is scientific fact that the preferred prey of the
3.
pike in Loughs Corrib, Mask and Carra is wild brown trout. This has been demonstrated in these
catchments and in other similar catchments in the Irish Republic of a similar geological type. The regional
fisheries boards and the central fisheries board have concluded from the scientific evidence that in order to
protect these valuable fisheries the stocks of the main predatory species (pike) should be managed. This has
resulted in pike from these lakes being stocked into other fisheries in the locality specifically developed for
coarse angling.

4.
As per the information received from the WRFB, pike in the great western lakes have been shown to
start feeding on trout in significant quantities when they reach a fork tail length of 50 cm. Pike smaller
than this do not impact directly on trout stocks as they do not feed on trout. Management of the pike
stocks removes larger pike (the ones preferentially feeding on trout). The result of these management
methods leaves a stock of pike in the lake with a lower average weight, a greater proportion of which do
not feed on trout. This means that the objective of reducing the burden on trout stocks is achieved and as
a consequence the trout stocks increase. This has been demonstrated as being a successful management
tool for wild brown trout fisheries for the past 45 years.

An independent scientific evaluation of the necessity for pike control in Irish trout Loughs was requested
by the committee responsible for the distribution of Community funds to Irish fishery projects (the TAM
programme for the 1995-1999 period). The evaluator concluded that the policy of controlling pike
numbers in Irish trout Loughs of the central and regional fisheries boards was an essential management
tool.

As for the comments of Dr Bruno Broughton, these appear to be at odds with a previous publication in
which he stated that the removal of large pike from English reservoirs, which were being managed as trout
fisheries, was beneficial to the trout stocks. The direct quotation is as follows: (cid:145)there is no doubt that the
quality of trout fishing has increased since pike removal commenced.(cid:146) (1).

5.
According to the information received from the WRFB, the great lakes are very important wild
brown trout fisheries. To allow them to deteriorate into fisheries dominated by coarse fish species would
be to allow one of the most important fisheries in the country to fall into decline. Ireland cannot allow this
to happen. It would be improper to favour the introduced species of pike and roach at the expense of the
native wild species of brown trout. It must be a goal of Ireland and the Commission that these lakes be
protected as wild brown trout fisheries and any undue outside or external influence must be controlled. As
well as protecting the native species these lakes are wild brown trout fisheries of enormous international
importance both in terms of recreational and tourist angling and also constitute a very special and rare
ecotype particularly in European terms.

(1) This was in the following peer reviewed paper: A comparison of three methods of pike (Esox lucius L.) removal
from a lowland trout fishery. Authors: Broughton, N.M. & Fisher K.A.M. in Fish. Mgmt. (1981), Vol. 12, No 3,
pp. 101-106.

(2001/C 350 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/01

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2001)

Subject: Economic forecasts

On 19 January 2001, Commissioner Solbes stated that (cid:145)oil prices are lower than expected, and the euro
exchange rate has improved vis-(cid:224)-vis the working hypotheses which were used by the Commission in
November when drawing up its macroeconomic forecasts(cid:146).

How (cid:129) and to what extent (cid:129) will
fundamentals?

these exchange rates affect

the Community(cid:146)s macroeconomic

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/21

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission forecasts published on 22 November 2000 were based, among other things, on
assumptions of an average oil price in 2001 of USD 30 per barrel Brent and a USD/€ exchange rate of
0,90. So far in 2001 (up to 13 March) the oil price has been around 12 % lower and the USD/€ rate 3 %
higher than previously assumed.

These changes to the oil price and exchange rate are not particularly significant and within the normal
range of volatility for these variables. If this situation were to prevail over the year, it would have a limited
impact on the economic performance of the Community.

In particular:

(cid:129) inflation should be lower than otherwise with unchanged exchange rates and oil prices. Only taking
into account the direct impact on fuel prices (and disregarding possible secondary effects on other
consumer prices), an easing of the harmonised consumer price index (HICP) rise of around 0,1 % to
0,2 % could be expected for 2001. The stronger euro would slightly reinforce this effect on headline
inflation;

(cid:129) as regards gross domestic product (GDP) growth, a lower oil price, on the one hand, stimulates real
household incomes and business profitability and, thus, consumption and investment. On the other
hand, a higher exchange rate weighs on the price competitiveness of exporters, and therefore lowers
exports and growth. Hence, the net effect of the changed oil price and exchange rate on GDP growth
in 2001 is, to some degree, uncertain.

The changes in oil prices and exchange rates are not the only new elements in the external environment
for the Community economy. Most notably, the extent of the American slowdown since late last year was
not fully visible at the time of the last Commission forecast.

(2001/C 350 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0590/01

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Duties imposed by Brazil on canned peaches

The Brazilian authorities have imposed duty of 55 % on canned peaches. This duty is a discriminatory levy
on canned peaches exported from Greece to Brazil and was imposed by the Brazilian authorities some five
years ago.

It was to be reduced, however, each year until by December 2000 it would stand at 23 %, and from
1 January 2001, it would be limited to 17 %.

I am informed, however, that in October 2000, the Brazilian authorities increased the duty to 55 % once
again. At the same time, they launched an anti-dumping inquiry, though without imposing an interim
duty. According to the Brazilian authorities, the duty was of a temporary nature and would be abolished
on 31 December 2000 when the original arrangements would be reintroduced and the applicable duty
reduced (on 1 January 2001) to 17 %. On 2 January 2001, however, the Brazilian authorities extended the
validity of the 55 % duty until 30 June 2001 with a view to discussing the rate within Mercosur.

As a result Brazil(cid:146)s action, producers and exporters of canned peaches lost the holiday period business and
suffered a serious setback. In general, the pressure exerted on EU canned peaches from third countries is
growing, threatening an important sector of European industry with disaster, which may snowball into
negative repercussions for society as a whole (higher unemployment), the farming community and, by
extension, the common agricultural policy, the environment, etc.