WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Recovery plan for hake.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU waters, authorised catch, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing regulations, sea fish

C 172 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The phenomenon to which the Honourable Member refers is recognised by the Commission as an
important issue for policy attention. Within the fields of public health and social policy the Commission
has undertaken a number of research studies investigating the attitudes, behaviour and health of young
people in the Union. In addition, the Commission’s annual report on the social situation, which analyses
the major social trends, will next year give particular focus to health issues in relation to the social
situation. Alcohol consumption, particularly among young people, will be one of the elements to be
addressed.

In relation to the specific case raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to
intervene directly and any such actions remain within the responsibility of the Member States.

(2002/C 172 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Recovery plan for hake

The plan proposed by the Commission for rebuilding stocks of cod and hake in Community waters is
being strongly contested by the industry, the Member States affected and Parliament itself, particularly with
regard to hake. The reason is the discrepancy between the conclusions of the various scientific reports and
the drastic measures being proposed by the Commission.

Firstly, the conclusions of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), on which the
Commission based its proposal, do not tally with those of the Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee on Fisheries (STECF). The latter committee is proposing a TAC of 35 000 t for 2002, against
figures of between 16 500 and 22 000 t being quoted by the Commission. The committee’s assessment is
backed up by scientific research carried out in the area, for example by the Spanish oceanographic ship
Vizconde de Eza.

Secondly, Parliament, the Member States affected and the industry are advocating a recovery plan for hake
which would be implemented step-by-step over a longer period of time, thus cushioning the socio-
economic impact and avoiding the irreversible measures of
fleet decommissioning and job losses.
Specifically, Parliament is calling for the plan to be implemented over a period of at least seven years,
rather than the five proposed by the Commission. Moreover,
the Commission does not appear to
understand that the problems are different for cod and for hake, and that the measures to be taken must
therefore also be different.

What is the Commission’s view of the opposition voiced by Parliament, the countries concerned and the
industry with regard to its proposal for hake? Will it take account of the scientific reports on hake stocks
which refute the critical state of stocks on which the Commission has based its drastic proposal? Will the
Commission draw up a global socio-economic risk analysis of the plan’s implications in the short and
medium term, as Parliament has demanded? Is the Commission aware of the scientific research conducted
in the area which confirms that there has been a substantial deterioration in the state of hake stocks in
zone VIII (Bay of Biscay and French coast), but that the situation is better in zones VI and VII (Irish Box)?
Has the Commission not considered submitting a fresh proposal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

Industry agrees that cod stocks in Community waters are depleted. There is less concordance of opinion
with respect to hake.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/203

STECF nowhere proposes a total authorised catch (TAC) of 35 000 tonnes for 2002. The only definitive
reference by STECF to a possible TAC for 2002 states that ‘from the economic point of view, the TAC
level should be maintained at the 2001 level …’. The Commission maintains that, according to the analysis
of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the stock is outside safe biological limits and
is threatened with collapse. Against this background, the Council decided upon a TAC of 26 960 tonnes
for 2002 whereas the TAC for 2001 was 22 623 tonnes.

While the Commission has not defined a period for the recovery plan, the Commission has always been
clear that, under the plan as proposed, recovery is expected to be achieved after seven-eight years.

The measures proposed for hake and for cod are identical in principle but are different in detail and take
into account,
the
Commission proposal aims at a 30 % increase in quantities of mature fish from year to year whereas for
hake the intention is to achieve a 15 % increase.

levels of exploitation of these stocks. For cod,

the different recent

in particular,

The Commission is unaware of any refutation of the current critical state of the hake stock. Any scientific
evidence that is relevant to the evaluation of this stock will, however, be taken into account by ICES in its
2002 assessment of the stock, which has been brought forward to its May meeting.

The Commission is aware of the situation with hake in areas VIII and VII and as a result of these
differences has advocated allocation of a larger part of the overall TAC to area VII than would otherwise
have been the case. Council agreed to this approach.

The Commission has not considered submitting a new proposal.

(2002/C 172 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: The volume of investment required by the Kyoto Protocol

On Wednesday, 23 January 2002, the Environment Committee tabled the following question to the
Commission: ‘What information does the Commission have concerning which investments are planned
within the European Union countries and also accession countries between now and 2010 to enable them
to meet their Kyoto commitments?’ The reply which the committee received made it clear that the
Commission did not know anything about the matter.

Has the Commission received any information about it from the Member States since then? Does the
Commission consider it necessary to make inquiries about the issue?

Would it be desirable to carry out a survey of the climate for investment by businesses and their
investment plans in the light of the Kyoto commitments, using uniform questionnaires in the EU and the
candidate countries, in order to ascertain how and in accordance with what timetable the Community’s
obligations are being complied with by businesses?

Is it necessary to publish the data thus gathered and the Commission’s assessments of the cost implications
of the Kyoto commitments in the EU and candidate countries? Is such information needed, for example, as
a basis for taking decisions on important legislative instruments relating to climate change?

Does the Commission consider it necessary to coordinate Member States’ actions in order to create a
positive atmosphere,
joint declarations and other measures, which will give
businesses the confidence to make long-term investments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

inter alia by means of