WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Bycatch of dolphins and other cetaceans in European waters, especially that accruing as a result of pelagic trawling.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, application of EU law, by-catch, common fisheries policy, fishing regulations, fishing vessel, marine mammal, protection of animal life

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/81

Because of its length, type and location the overall project for this road is subject to the Italian law on
environmental impact assessment implementing Directive 85/33/EEC (1), Annex II, as amended by Directive
97/11/EC (2).

Despite the substantial impact of the road, which will be located near densely populated areas and areas
important for wildlife, no assessment of its environmental impact has been carried out.

My previous Written Question, P-1666/01 (3), on the subject was answered by Mrs Wallström, on behalf of
the Commission, on 10 July 2001.

The final project for the ‘first stretch’ of the Tangenziale sud (the section between the SP47 and exit A27),
approximately 2.8 km long, was approved at a service conference on 21 March 2002.

The local bodies concerned are proceeding with the planning and approval of the project section by
section, without considering the road as a whole, solely in order to prevent its being subject to legislation
on environmental assessment and safeguards.

No alternative to the project has ever been considered, nor the possibility of making the nearby six-lane
motorway toll-free, since with the addition of new sliproads it could absorb the province’s traffic.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Community legislation on environmental
impact assessment in the face of attempts to circumvent it?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 174.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the
powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all
necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to
ensure the observance of Community law.

With reference to the specific situation described by the Honourable Member in his Written Question
P-1666/01, the Commission opened an own initiative case (2001/2187) and sent the Italian authorities
two letters requesting information and observations on the issue. They have not yet replied to these letters.
In case of persistent absence of reply, the Commission might open an infringement procedure against Italy
for lack of co-operation in the achievement of the Community’s tasks (Article 10 of the EC treaty).

The additional
assessment of the case.

information given in the present written question will be taken into account in the

(2002/C 309 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1100/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Bycatch of dolphins and other cetaceans in European waters, especially that accruing as a result of

pelagic trawling

The UK Government has suggested that up to 50 dolphins a day are being caught in the European bass
fishery, with an unknown number being caught in other pelagic fisheries in the English Channel and Bay

C 309 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

of Biscay. The report of the Irish trial pair trawl fishery for albacore tuna (1) records a bycatch rate of
145 cetaceans caught by just four pairs of trawlers in the 1999 season. In his answer to Written Question
E-0500/02 (2) on behalf of the Commission, Commissioner Fischler states that ‘it is evident that there is a
need to establish protection measures and to concentrate these in the Baltic Sea, the Southern North Sea,
the English Channel and the Celtic sea.’

According to the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/CEE of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats) (3), Member States are required to establish a system
to monitor the incidental capture and killing of these species, and, in the light of information gathered, to
take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing
does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned. They were also required to report to
the Commission on the implementation of the provisions of the Directive by 30 September 2001, but, in
fact, several Member States failed to do so. Can the Commission indicate which Member States those were?

Is the Commission content to allow Member States to fail to meet their obligations under the Council
Directive with impunity, and, if not, what options or sanctions are available to the Commission? Does the
Commission have any power to insist on Member States allowing independent observers (including
Commission officials) to monitor levels of bycatch?

Finally, national and Community funds continue to be made available to subsidise the building of fishing
vessels, including those which use pelagic trawls, at a time when fishing stocks in Community waters are
rapidly dwindling and some species are close to extinction. Does the Commission have the power to insist
that monies are made available only to certain types of fishing vessels, and what is the justification for
such subsidies generally if they serve to reduce the stocks which need urgently to be replenished if the
Community’s fishing fleets are to retain long-term viability?

(1) Diversification trials with alternative tuna fishing techniques including the use of remote sensing technology. Final
Report to the Commission of the European Communities. Directorate-General for Fisheries. EU contract No 98/010.

(2) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 93.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2002)

The Honourable Member makes reference to the letter sent by the Member of the Commission responsible
for Fisheries and Agriculture to Fisheries Ministers of Member States in December 2000, where
information was requested on the action taken to assess by-catch levels. Replies were missing from Spain,
France, Ireland, Italy and Portugal.

What has become evident from the information received until present is that, to be effective, both
monitoring and mitigation measures should be taken in a coordinated manner at Community level, using
the management tools of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission is at present in the process of
gathering the technical elements that will allow to issue a proposal setting out effective and proportional
management measures. The proposal is expected to be ready in the coming months and may include the
obligation to accept observers on board of fishing vessels.

This being said, the Commission will not give up using all its political and legal means, which may include
initiating infraction procedures before the Court of Justice, to guarantee that all Member States comply
with their obligations emanating from Community law.

The Honourable Member refers also to the use of Community funds to subsidise the building of fishing
vessels. The Commission wishes to underline that, according to current legislation, public aid to vessel
building is conditional upon the removal of an equivalent capacity from the corresponding fleet segment.
In addition, public aid for scrapping vessels is only given if the capacity withdrawn cannot be replaced.
These measures also apply to the pelagic trawler segment of the fleet, whose capacity, consequently,
cannot be increased. The Commission is considering, in the framework of the forthcoming reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy, to propose an approach to management of fleet capacity which will include the
removal of all subsidies for building of new vessels.