WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. EU fisheries agreements in the future.
Date: 2002-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: UN Environment Programme, agreement (EU), developing countries, economic consequence, financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, report

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/55

The presence of nickel is necessary to implement techniques minimising the risk of counterfeiting. Since 1
and 2 euro coins demand a particularly high level of security, nickel is needed in the production of these
high-quality coins. Nevertheless, the rate of coins that contain nickel is currently considerably smaller than
with the previous national coins (14 % of euro coins contain nickel as opposed to 75 % of the national
coins that were in circulation).

The decision on the technical specifications of the banknotes was taken by the European Monetary
Institute (EMI), and the matter is presently of the competence of the European Central Bank (ECB).

(2003/C 28 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: EU fisheries agreements in the future

A report by UNEP, published on 27 December 2001, argues that developing countries which open up
their waters to foreign fishing fleets lose more than they gain, noting also that over-fishing pushes their
people even deeper into poverty.

It singles out Namibia as a good example of how a country which says ‘no’ to concluding fisheries
agreements with the European Union can very successfully build up a fishing industry from scratch.

in most countries with which the European Union concludes fisheries
Another problem is that,
agreements, the bulk of the money it pays for the agreements goes to the political elite, whilst very little
of the money reaches fishermen, who are in fact deprived of their incomes.

Has the Commission studied the report in question and does it agree with the views expressed therein?
What will it do to ensure that the African countries with which the European Union currently concludes
fisheries agreements are able instead to develop their own fishing industries, like Namibia has done?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the study by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) presented
in December 2001. The main objective of this study, which focuses on two case studies (Senegal and
Argentina), is to examine and establish a correlation between trade liberalisation, economic reforms, the
environment and the marine resources.

Even if there may be room for improvement, it should be noted that the Union’s Fishery Agreements aim
at supporting responsible and sustainable fisheries in the countries with which it has an agreement.
Through these agreements, the Community pays a financial contribution in return for access to surplus
stocks. These funds are paid to the Public Treasury and are split, on the one hand, into a contribution to
the State budget and, on the other, to so called ‘targeted actions’ for the development of the fisheries sector
of the partner country. The Community favours a high incidence of targeted actions. Sometimes these
actions reach as much as 60-70 % of the Community’s financial contribution. The main actions are
maritime control and surveillance, scientific and technical programmes, institutional support, training for
fisheries managers, support to small-scale fishery and participation in international meetings on fisheries.
In order to ensure that the funds aimed at targeted actions are invested in accordance to the programming,
the Commission requests yearly reports from the partner country on the implementation and results of
these actions.

C 28 E/56

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

In the framework of the revision of the Common Fisheries Policy (see the Green Paper on the future of the
common fisheries policy) (1) the Commission underlines the necessity to contribute to the improvement of
global governance in fisheries related matters through the effective implementation of
the current
international legal framework, the strengthening and promotion of regional cooperation mechanisms and
the development of a partnership approach with the developing countries.

With regard to the Honourable Member’s question concerning the type of approach to be chosen in order
to develop the fishery sector, it should be underlined that this falls under the competence of the Coastal
State.

(1) COM(2001) 135 final.

(2003/C 28 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0907/02

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Regeneration of waste oils

Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC (2) and Directive 91/692/
EEC (3), states that ‘where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, Member States shall
take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration’.

In the spring of 2001 the Commission served notice on certain Member States (including France, Sweden,
Austria, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Finland) for failure to ensure that waste
oil is regenerated rather than disposed of.

On the basis of the above, has the Directorate-General responsible for environmental matters prepared any
revision of the Community directives on waste oils with a view to ensuring that they are regenerated
primarily for conversion into lubricants?

In view of the need to ensure that hazardous waste is dealt with in a responsible fashion, what action has
the Commission taken in order to prevent any repetition of occurrences such as the release of dioxin-based
pollutants and the contamination of animal feed by oil?

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 48.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

As correctly pointed out by the Honourable Member,
the Commission has launched infringement
procedures against 13 Member States for failure to implement Article 3 of Directive 75/439/EEC (1) on the
disposal of waste oils which provides that the Member States shall give the priority to the regeneration of
waste oils. The intention of this action is to enforce an already existing obligation in Community
legislation.

The Commission has no intention to propose an immediate review of the above-mentioned Directive. The
Commission is, nevertheless, examining a recent study on EU waste oil collection and recovery which has
endorsed the case for regeneration of waste oils. Any future proposal to review the Directive would seek to
enhance incentives to regenerate such oils.

The existing Directive establishes the main obligations that have to be complied with to ensure the
collection and adequate disposal of waste oils in order to prevent their illegal dumping or inadequate
disposal. Indeed, the use of waste oils, as defined in the Waste Oil Directive (i.e. mineral waste oils), as
animal feed would be harmful for animal health. It would thus be in infringement of Article 4 of the
Framework Directive on waste which explicitly establishes that waste has to be disposed of or recovered
without risks to animals.