WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/02 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. One-net rule.
Date: 2002-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, Netherlands, application of EU law, conservation of fish stocks, fishing net, fishing regulations

C 205 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission very much shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the
unsatisfactory progress registered to date in relation to the Community’s accession to the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Community tuna vessels have been operating for many years now in
the Pacific area under the competence of this Regional Fisheries Organisation (RFO). Community vessels
have been fully respecting all the conservation measures put in place by the RFO, even though the
Community does not have the full benefits of membership, and notably, the right to participate in the
decision-making of the organisation.

Nearly three years have elapsed since IATTC Parties agreed, through the 1999 Guayaquil Protocol, to
permit the Community to adhere to the organisation. However, although a number of Parties have signed
the Protocol, the ratification procedures have been very slow. These Parties invoke the difficult and slow
internal legislation processes within their countries, in order to explain their lack of ratification of the
Protocol.

In official meetings of this Organisation, the Commission has constantly raised this issue, underlining that
IATTC Parties should accelerate their ratification procedures, in order that the Community can exercise
fully its rights and responsibilities as a Party, and not as an observer, to IATTC. The Commission, in
addition to the above mentioned official interventions during the IATTC meetings, has also sent a ‘Note
Verbale’ in late December 2001 to all the IATTC Parties requesting information on the state of progress of
their internal ratification procedures, and calling on them to finalise quickly these processes.

(2002/C 205 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: One-net rule

I have received information from several sources that, instead of moving to other fishing grounds, Danish
and Dutch fishing vessels are compensating for low catches by fishing with two or even four nets at once.
Such action would totally contradict efforts towards sustainable fisheries and the preservation of the
biomass, since the areas concerned are virtually ransacked by this method. This is also directly related to
the issue of the use of by-catches.

1.

2.

Is the Commission aware of this practice?

Is this fishing method compatible with the ‘one-net rule’?

If this method is not compatible with European rules, what steps will the Commission take to deal

3.
with it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

In several fisheries more than one net is used at the same time by the fishing vessel. One example is
fishing with beam trawls
typically use two nets
simultaneously, one on each side of the vessel. Another example is fishing for nephrops or flatfish with
twin (or triple or more) otter trawl, where the vessels use a gear consisting of two or more trawls linked
together.

(double-rigged beam trawl), where the vessels

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/213

The so-called one net rule (Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of
fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (1),
Chapter 1 Article 4) does not prevent the use of more than one net at the time as long as the mesh sizes of
the gears are in compliance with the conditions specified in the Regulation. This typically means that the
gears must have the same mesh size to be used at the same time. To the Commission’s knowledge this is
the case in the fisheries where more than one gear is used at the same time.

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

(2002/C 205 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Promotion of non-animal testing

In order to achieve the overriding goal of sustainable development, the Commission has identified a
number of objectives in the White Paper on a Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy that must be met in
order to achieve sustainable development in the chemicals industry within the framework of the Single
Market. These objectives comprise the protection of human health and the environment as well as the
promotion of non-animal testing.

In that respect, the Commission stated that ‘precise knowledge on the intrinsic properties as well as on the
exposure arising as a result of a particular use and of the disposal is an indispensable prerequisite for
decision making on the safe management of chemicals’. This raises the question of how this indispensable
prerequisite can be fulfilled most effectively and in the shortest possible time, while minimising tests on
laboratory animals, also with a view to stop the ongoing uncontrolled testing of millions of tonnes of
chemicals on man and the environment at large.

Several strategies could be pursued in parallel, as inter alia addressed by the resolution of the European
Parliament (A5-0356/2001) on the future chemicals policy:

B Mandatory data-sharing between companies and countries of existing chemicals information, including

consortia-building by industry to avoid duplicate testing;

B Prohibition of the use of animal tests where alternative tests recognised by the authorities are

available, and acceleration of the development and validation of further non-animal tests;

B a step-wise non-animal testing strategy, that makes full use of computer models that predict hazards
tests for persistency and

based on chemical structure (QSAR), as well as of physico-chemical
bioaccumulation, and cascades of recognised in vitro tests;

B grouping of substances for assessment purposes;

B phase out of substances that are persistent and bioaccumulative without the additional demand for

toxicity data.

How does the Commission judge each of these strategies in terms of effectiveness of getting the necessary
data and reduction of animal testing, respectively?

Which of these strategies does the Commission intend to pursue and in which way?