WRITTEN QUESTION E-2154/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional fisheries organisations.
Date: 2001-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, European Commission, administration of the Institutions, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing regulations, world organisation

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/203

When looking at network infrastructure sharing, Member States mainly consider two aspects, namely the
compatibility of different schemes of network sharing with the applicable licensing conditions and their
impact on competition.

As regards licensing conditions, this falls under the responsibility of the Member States. In its exchanges
with Member States, the Commission has stressed the importance of avoiding a fragmented approach to
network sharing rules.

From the exchanges between the Commission and Member States it has become clear that in a number of
Member States, notably in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the regulators have
looked into the matter and issued guidance as to what degrees of network infrastructure sharing would be
compatible with the licensing conditions. In this context it is also worth noting that new technological
developments may allow sharing of certain parts of
the network equipment while preserving the
independent control of network operations by operators. In other Member States, such as Sweden, the
licensing conditions appear to set out directly the possibilities for network sharing and have been applied.

On competition aspects, no formal rulings have yet been made because competition authorities essentially
look at the impact of network sharing on a case by case basis. In this context, it is important to note that,
as far as the Commission is aware, with the exception of one case in Sweden no concrete sharing
agreement proposals have been submitted to the national authorities so far. Equally, no such agreement
has so far been formally notified to the Commission services dealing with competition aspects.

Requests for loans from telecommunications operators are, as is the case for other European Investment
Bank (EIB) loan projects, submitted to the Commission for an opinion prior to decision by the Bank. In
this context, the Commission is in ongoing discussions with the EIB on an agreed framework for loans to
projects in the telecommunications sector. As regards the nature and scale of loans in this sector, the Bank
granted loans of € 2 126 million in 1999 and € 2 211 million in 2000 to operators of both fixed and
mobile networks in the Community. So far in 2001 the Commission has been consulted on loans in the
sector worth an estimated € 2 000 million, again covering projects for both fixed and mobile networks in
the Community.

The Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprise and Information Society is, as are other
Members of the Commission, willing to exchange views with the Parliamentary committees at their
request. The Commission would be interested in discussing the follow-up of
the above mentioned
Communications with the Parliament(cid:146)s competent committee. September 2001 or October 2001 would
seem to be a suitable time.

(1) Communication on the Introduction of Third Generation Mobile Communications in the European Union: State of

Play and the Way Forward, COM(2001) 141 final.

(2002/C 40 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2154/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Regional fisheries organisations

(18 July 2001)

In his answer to my Written Question E-1378/01 (1), Mr Fischler pointed to the importance of regional
fisheries organisations (RFOs), describing them as a key challenge for the future of the common fisheries
policy, and said that the priority tasks would be for the Community to become more actively involved in
the RFOs, exercising its exclusive powers, and for the recommendations which they adopted to be
transposed into Community law.

Mr Fischler also announced that a unit had been set up to monitor RFOs as a whole (with the exception of
certain organisations covering the north-west Atlantic) and that the Fisheries DG had been reorganised to
enable it to respond more effectively to matters arising and to make for a more effective and coherent
approach to Community involvement and participation in RFOs.

C 40 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Could the Commission supply a complete list of recommendations and other measures adopted by RFOs
which have already been transposed into Community law, as well as specifying any other measures that
will be transposed? Could it indicate likewise the measures which have not yet been transposed and say
why this has not happened?

Could the Commission give details of the operation, organisation, and make-up (human, technical, and
financial resources) of the unit that will be called upon to monitor RFOs as a whole? Why have some
north-west Atlantic RFOs been excluded from the unit(cid:146)s remit? Which particular RFOs have been thus left
out of consideration?

Could the Commission give details of the final establishment plan of the Fisheries DG resulting from the
reorganisation carried out?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission could indeed provide a list of the different recommendations and conservation measures
adopted by the regional fisheries organisations (RFOs), but it would certainly be quite hard to present, on
such basis, the scope of their transposition into Community law. For example, there are about 60
recommendations and conservation measures adopted by the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Mar(cid:237)ne Living Resources (CCAMLR), many of which require no transposition since they refer to
authorisations to undertake exploratory fisheries to certain Parties, whereas others set forth limits or
prohibition of catches, together with technical and/or control measures, all in the same text. Other RFOs
adopt measures with similarly complex contents and in similarly high numbers. Most of these conservation
measures relate to limits and prohibition of catches, and they are transposed into Community law every
year in the framework of the total allowable catch (TAC) and Quotas exercise. Given the complexity that
results from the multiple RFOs at work and their differing work methods for the adoption of conservation
measures, measures, other than those implemented through TACs and quotas, are conventionally classified
in three general domains with a view to their implementation: technical measures, control measures and
measures establishing a system for tracking catches along the industrial and commercial chain.

It is possible to note, by looking at the directory of the Community legislation in force, that in relation to
those RFOs that have adopted measures relating to these three subjects, the Community has itself adopted
relevant transposition regulations. There are, in fact, Community regulations in force concerning control
that implement NAFO (1), NEAFC (2) and CCAMLR measures, and the adoption of a control regulation for
fisheries of highly migratory species is underway (3). Community regulations in the area of control will
eventually integrate also the work carried out in the framework of ICCAT (4) and IOTC (5), with the active
involvement of the Community. This will no doubt significantly facilitate the implementation of these two
control schemes once they have been adopted by the said organisations.

With regard to technical regulations, the measures adopted by NAFO, NEAFC and CCAMLR have also
been implemented by means of different texts. The same can be said in relation to highly migratory fish
stocks, with the adoption this same year of Council Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 of 14 May 2001 laying
down certain technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species (6).

Finally,
in the area of catch tracking, the Council has just adopted Regulation (EC) No 1035/2001
establishing a catch documentation scheme for Dissostichus spp (7). Also, the Commission will shortly
present the Council with a proposal concerning the Tuna Tracking System applicable in the framework of
the AIDCP (8).

The Commission must still, however, regard this process as a dynamic one, since today transposition
involves updating and improvement of conservation measures much more than it does regulating new
domains. Therefore, the Commission considers it necessary to review the implementation regulations of
the CCAMLR measures, even though the implementing text was adopted only three years ago (Regulation

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/205

(EC) No 66/98 (9)). Consequently, it intends to present the Council next Autumn with a joint proposal of
two draft Regulations, one concerning control of fishing activities in the CCAMLR Convention area, and
the other concerning technical measures applicable to the same fisheries.

Another domain where an update of the Community regulations seems in principle justified is the one
relating to inspection and control of fisheries activities in the framework of the NAFO Convention (10).
However, this organisation intends to embark on a complete overhaul of its control and inspection system
in the near future. Therefore, and without excluding this possibility, it is necessary to carefully consider
whether this is the right
time to initiate proceedings for the updating of the relevant Community
regulations.

the unit responsible for
With regard to the following question asked by the Honourable Member,
(DG) counts on 10
International and Regional Arrangements within the Fisheries Directorate-General
statutary agents and a detached national expert for the coverage of the activities and related files of 11
RFOs. Besides consolidated organisations such as ICCAT, NAFO, CCAMLR, IATTC (11) and CFCM (12),
which register a high level of activity throughout the year, the unit covers other organisations that are in
the process of being set up (SEAFO (13), WCPOFC (14)), or even at the stage of negotiation (SIOFC (15)). The
two remaining organisations, WECAFC and CECAF (16) are consultative committees dependent of the Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which register a relatively low level of activity, but should in the
medium-term become autonomous organisations with their own separate budget and management
functions. The unit is organised into teams with responsibility over one or several organisations so that the
follow-up of their activities and the presence of representatives to the different meetings may be ensured,
both at plenary and subsidiary levels.

responsible for

The two North-East Atlantic organisations that the Honourable Member refers to are NEAFC and IBSFC (17).
Responsibility for the follow-up of their activities as well as for those of NASCO (18) has been given to the
unit
the management of stocks within the (cid:145)Conservation Policy(cid:146) Directorate. The
management methods they apply for the stocks they cover, the particular position that the Community
holds therein as a Coastal Party, the specific co-operation and exchange mechanisms established with
Norway, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and the Baltic States and the relations established in this context with
candidate countries distinguish the Community participation to NEAFC and ISBFC from that to the other
RFOs. It should be noted, however, that the bilateral fisheries agreements with Greenland are managed by
unit B3. The tight links between the activity of both organisations and the management of internal fishery
resources also motivate conferring the responsibility for their follow-up to the afore-mentioned unit.

As for DG Fisheries(cid:146) Organigramme and Mission Statement,
these documents are published and
immediately available via internet on the home page of the Directorate General on the Europa website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/fisheries/index_es.htm

(1) North-Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.
(2) North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
(3) Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down control measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly

migratory fish, COM/2000/619 final (OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001).
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.

(4)
(5)
(6) Regulation of 14 May 2001 (OJ L 137, 19.5.2001).
(7) Regulation of 22 May 2001 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001).
(8) Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program.
(9) Regulation (EC) No 66/98 18 December 1997 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to

fishing activities in the Antarctic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2113/96 (OJ L 6, 10.1.1998), modified.

(10) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1956/88 of 9 June 1988 adopting provisions for the application of the scheme of
joint international inspection adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (OJ L 175, 6.7.1988), and
Council Regulation (EC) No 3069/95 of 21 December 1995 establishing a European Community observer scheme
applicable to Community fishing vessels operating in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (OJ L 329, 30.12.1995).
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

(11)
(12) General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.
(13) South-Eastern Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.
(14) Western and Central Pacific Ocean Fisheries Commission (also so-called MHLC process).
(15) Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission.
(16) Respectively, Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission and Committee for the Eastern and Central Atlantic

Fisheries.
(17)
International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission.
(18) North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation.