WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Total depletion of a natural mussel bed in the Wadden Sea protected by the Netherlands by fishermen operating with a German licence.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, exhaustion of resources, fishing rights, mollusc, sea fishing

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/85

(cid:129) and ensure that the EC Treaty(cid:146)s competition rules are applied fully in the energy sector. In particular,
the Commission will continue to apply the rules of the Treaties on restrictive business practices and
abuse of a dominant market position against restrictions and distortions in supply competition and
against discrimination in network access, to scrutinise any state aid granted to electricity and gas
companies (including state aid in the nuclear sector) and to apply competition rules against limitations
on consumers(cid:146) right to choose a supplier. Examples of such cases treated by the Commission in the
last two years are the interventions against joint selling (e.g. GFU and EDF/CNR), reinforcements of
dominant positions through mergers (e.g. VEBA/VIAG, EDF/EnBW), privileged network access
(e.g. Danish/German and French/British interconnectors), stranded costs schemes and locking-in of
key customers (Gas Natural/Endesa).

The Commission also agreed that if adoption of the proposals to further liberalise energy markets were
delayed, it would consider adopting itself Decisions or Directives, on the basis of Article 86 (ex Article 90)
of the EC Treaty, and notably its third paragraph, to address possible distortions of competition resulting
from different levels of liberalisation.

The Commission(cid:146)s discussions underlined the importance of a united European market and of ensuring
respect
the Internal Market. The Commission also confirmed its
determination to create a true Internal Market for energy that contributes to greater security of supply and
high quality services of general interest.

for the fundamental principles of

(2002/C 40 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Total depletion of a natural mussel bed in the Wadden Sea protected by the Netherlands by

fishermen operating with a German licence

1.
Can the Commission confirm that there is no agreement between Germany and the Netherlands as to
the demarcation of the border in the wide mouth of the river Ems between the towns of Emden (D) and
Delfzij (NL) and the islands Rottummeroog (NL) and Borkum (D), so that according to the Netherlands the
border runs midway across the body of water while Germany considers the border to run along the Dutch
shore?

2.
Is the Commission aware of the fact that the body of water referred to in paragraph 1, which is sub-
divided into the Dollard, Bocht van Watum and Oostfriesche Gaatje zones, forms part of the protected
Wadden Sea with regard to which agreements exist between the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark
intended to maintain the ecological equilibrium, that the Netherlands and Germany concluded the Eems-
Dollard Agreement in 1960 and an environmental protocol thereto in 1996, and that Netherlands policy
aims to protect the natural mussel beds as a food source for sea birds, partly owing to previous experience
showing that even 10 years after total depletion such mussel beds have failed to recover?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of the German State of
Lower Saxony recently issued a licence for the natural mussel bed extending over 10 hectares of the Hond
sandbank just off the village of Bierum on the Netherlands coast to be totally depleted through fishing and
that German fishermen did so on 16 May 2001 achieving a profit of some € 500 000?

4.
Is the Lower Saxony Minister right in saying that he does not have the authority to refuse a licence
for the complete depletion of stocks in what is deemed to be their territory, even if Germany and the
Netherlands have previously agreed to leave the disputed region untouched?

5. What can the Commission do to prevent an area of the sea protected by a Member State which
voluntarily foregoes commercial exploitation from being devastated as a result of a licence issued by
another Member State?

How can the Commission help prevent the potential destruction of mussel beds in two other

6.
sandbanks in the same disputed border region?

Source: (cid:145)Netwerk(cid:146) current affairs programme broadcast on 20 May 2001 on Nederland 1 (TV channel.)

C 40 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

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

(3 September 2001)

It is not within the powers of the Commission to take a position in the discussion between Germany and
the Netherlands on the demarcation of the border in the wide mouth of the river Ems between the towns
of Emden (Germany) and Delfzijl (the Netherlands) and the islands of Borkum (Germany) and Rottumeroog
(the Netherlands). This is not a question of
the interpretation and application of Community-law.
Therefore, the Commission is not able to reply to the first and the fifth questions.

As to the other questions, since the German authorities have issued to German fishermen a licence for the
fishing of the natural mussel bed of the Hond sandbank, the Commission has already launched an
investigation in order to further assess the matter with a view to ensuring that applicable Community
environmental law is respected in this case.

(2002/C 40 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Tension between the euro as the single currency and the increasingly different pension reserves in

the various Member States

1.
Is the Commission aware of the European Pension Fund Managers(cid:146) Guide published on 16 May by
William Mercer in London according to which the pension reserves in the Netherlands, Sweden and
Denmark equal between 100 % and 162 % of gross national product while those in Germany, Austria,
Belgium, Portugal, France and Spain only equal between 5 % and 13 % of GNP?

Can the Commission confirm that the differences in pension reserves in the various Member States
times since Member States which already had better pension

2.
have increased significantly in recent
provisions were able to increase their lead as a result of the increase in share prices in recent years?

Can the Commission also confirm that Italy and Sweden have increased pension contributions, that
3.
Germany and Spain are preparing legislation and that it would appear that France is not doing anything to
create pension reserves?

In the Commission(cid:146)s opinion, what are the likely consequences of the introduction of the euro as the
4.
single currency on 1 January 2002 in eleven Member States for the future of pension reserves which
already differ greatly from Member State to Member State?

5.

Does the Commission expect:

(a)

that very large income differences among the elderly will be accepted?

(b)

that existing pension reserves will lose out as a result of the significant monetary devaluation of the
euro required to create large pension reserves in other Member States?

(c) a policy to share some of the large reserves built up by certain Member States with those which have

built up little or no reserves?

(d)

the elimination of State pension funds and old-age pensions, leaving the provision of pensions to
international private pension managers without the involvement of governments authorities subject to
democratic control, trade unions or senior citizens(cid:146) organizations?

Source: De Volkskrant, 17 May 2001.