WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/02 by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Date: 2002-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, competence of the Member States, conservation of fish stocks, fishing regulations, recreational fishing, sports body, transparency in decision-making

C 301 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(cid:1) under the terms of the Commission’s communication (1) on the implementation in Europe of the
integrated management of coastal zones, the Member States are called upon to draw up a national
strategy to promote the integrated management of coastal zones,

can the Council examine to what extent such activities are permissible in the area concerned and provide
assurances that it will intercede with the Greek authorities to find a solution based on sound and balanced
management of this ecosystem which is so important to the island of Serifos?

(1) SEC/2001/0021 (cid:1) COD 2000/0227.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, the southern part of the island of Serifos has
been proposed by the Greek authorities, under code GR4220009, as a site of Community importance
under the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (1). With a view to inclusion of the site in the European ecological
network Natura 2000, the Greek authorities must ensure that the activities undertaken there do not lead to
a deterioration of the site.

However, the information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow the Commission to
pinpoint the precise location of the beach at Vaya and thus be able to verify whether Greece has complied
with its obligations under Community environment legislation.

For this reason, the Commission calls on the Honourable Member to forward all the relevant information
in his possession so that it can examine whether the project in question is incompatible in any way with
the value of the site in terms of nature conservation.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 301 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/02

by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

Will the Commission agree to consider the submission from the UK’s Recreational Sea Angling (RSA)
group with reference to the depletion of fish stocks in our seas, and agree to consider their suggestions for
policies and management of fish stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of sea angling and its contribution to the well-being of
certain coastal areas. However, the Commission believes that sea angling, in general terms, would be best
managed by Member States, on the basis of their proximity to the activity and the general absence, in
many cases, of a clear transnational dimension to this activity.

However, this does not mean that the Community should overlook such activity. In some cases, it is clear
that angling may have a Community dimension, for example where the species being caught are already
managed by the Community or in other cases where anglers’ contribution to the fishing mortality of
certain fish stocks may be non-negligible.
In such cases, the Commission believes that Community
intervention may be necessary and Member States may be required to take measures in respect of sea
angling that reflect Community policy needs.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/107

the
As to the question of participation of anglers in the Community’s decision making process,
enhancement of the participation of stakeholders is one of the priorities in the reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy. In that context, and inasmuch as the Commission takes initiatives on sea angling or on
fisheries in which they have a major interest, anglers’ associations will certainly be consulted as an
fundamental stakeholder in this activity.

(2002/C 301 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Proposal on the COM in rice

Various sources indicate that the Commission may be about to submit a proposal on the COM in rice to
coincide with the mid-term review, during the Spanish Presidency.

The proposal submitted almost a year ago on the need to review the relevant intervention mechanism has
been widely rejected.

Does the Commission actually intend to submit a fresh proposal in June?

Have the consequences of the possible elimination of the intervention price been adequately assessed?

Are the consequences and repercussions which the ‘everything but weapons’ initiative would have in this
sector being evaluated?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission has the intention to include the rice sector in the mid-term review.

In the context of the new proposal the questions about possible elimination of the intervention price, as
well as the consequences of the ‘Everything But Arms’ initiative will be addressed.

In February 2001 the Commission published an initial study concerning the possible impact of the
‘Everything But Arms’ proposal on the agricultural sector (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/pdf/eba_ias.pdf).

(2002/C 301 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1217/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Classification of ‘fresh milk’

The controversy in Italy over the correct
interpretation of the definition of a ‘fresh’ dairy product
(concerning such factors as the addition of an adjective of colour and a shelf-life of eight days) must
necessarily be a matter of concern to the Commission,
in the context of Article 2 of Directive
2000/13/EC (1) of 20 March 2000 and of Directive 92/46/EEC (2) of 16 June 1992.

In its answer to question P-0352/02 (3) on the same subject, the Commission stated that it did not have
sufficient information on the process of production of the milk concerned, and added that a more detailed
description of this process is needed for purposes of determining whether the labelling of such products is
in conformity with Community law.