WRITTEN QUESTION E-1559/02 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. By-catches of porpoise.
Date: 2002-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, EU Member State, by-catch, common fisheries policy, fishing regulations, marine mammal, protection of animal life

C 110 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

Could the Commission say:

1. What action has been taken on this report?

2. What practical steps it intends to take in response to it?

3. What progress has been made on this matter and, more particularly, what is the present position of

the advisers in question?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2002)

On 28 February 2001the Commission asked the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration and
the Secretariat General to set up a high level Task Force which would make an in-depth analysis of each
Adviser post and identify the real political and/or technical added value for the Commission.

The Task Force was established on 19 July 2001with the remit of presenting a report to the Secretary
General and to the Director General of Personnel and Administration:

(cid:1) evaluating the tasks performed by Advisers and Advisers ad personam within each Directorate

General;

(cid:1) identifying problems(and, inter alia, formulating possible recommendations and proposing transitional

measures which might be necessary);

(cid:1) defining the role of the Advisers within the Commission and presenting recommendations for the

future.

The report of the Task Force was finalised in November 2001 and then sent to all Directors General and
Heads of Services. The Secretary General and the Director General of Personnel and Administration have
asked the Members of the Task Force to meet with the individual Directors General to present the report
and also to discuss its conclusions. Those arrangements are underway.

According to the analysis provided in the report, Advisers tasks are often badly defined and the procedures
for their nomination have not always been very clear. The report concludes that this situation is not
consistent with the orientations of the Commission and it shows that resources are not used in the best
possible way. The Task Force recommends the adoption of measures which give better definition to which
indicate clearly which Advisers posts should be maintained and which should be suppressed, the job
descriptions of Advisers, and which clarify the selection and nomination procedures.

For the above reasons, it is evident that the conclusions of the report do not contradict the analyses made,
and they cannot be regarded to be ‘penalising the Advisers’ (cid:1) particularly since the report focuses more on
structures and procedures rather than on individual persons.

A consultative document on Advisers will be proposed and subjected to a concertation process. When new
guidelines are adopted by the Commission, the measures which they contain will have to be implemented
on a case by case basis, taking into account both the interest of the service and the interest of the
individuals concerned.

(2003/C 110 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1559/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: By-catches of porpoise

I have written to the Commission on a previous occasion in relation to this matter but, unfortunately, the
problems associated with the habitats directive do not appear to have been resolved.

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/21

What current initiatives has the Commission taken and what future initiatives will it take to reduce by-
catches of porpoise in waters in which Member States conduct fishing operations which are known to
result in unintentional by-catches of porpoise?

The Commissioner responsible for fisheries has previously written to Member States known to engage in
fishing activities which result in unintentional by-catches asking, inter alia, for a report on how those
countries have reduced or intend to reduce porpoise by-catches. What was the outcome of that inquiry
and which countries, in the Commission’s view, have now reduced by-catches to a level that can be said to
be consistent with Article 12 of the habitats directive?

In connection with consideration of complaint P-99/4288, the Commission received a report from the
then Danish Government containing the information that:

The Danish Government intends to reduce unintentional by-catches of porpoise in the North Sea and
domestic Danish waters to less than 2 % by means of the following initiatives:

1.

development and use of acoustic alarms in Danish fishing,

2. modifications to fishing gear (passive deterrents); and

3.

regulation of fisheries in time and space.

The letter was a contributory factor in dissuading the Commission from initiating proceedings against
Denmark. Will the Commission say whether the Danish by-catch has now been reduced to less than 2 %
and what initiatives, to its knowledge, the Danish Government has taken to regulate fisheries in time and
space and in domestic Danish waters?

Finally, how will the Commission ensure that the Member States comply with the obligations laid down in
Article 12 of the habitats directive in terms of reducing unintentional by-catches to a level which does not
have a significant negative impact on porpoise stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

1. With regards to Commission initiatives to address by-catches of small cetaceans by fisheries,
including the letter sent by the Commissioner in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries to the Member States
on this issue, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to refer to its recent replies to
in particular questions E-0500/02 by Mr Martin (1) and E-1100/02 by
comparable questions,
Mr Tannock (2).

2.
Notwithstanding the possible measures to be taken in a co-ordinated manner at the Community level
by using management tools of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Commission will ensure a proper
implementation of the Habitats Directive (3) by the Member States.

The Commission is now receiving the reports covering the first period of implementation of the Habitats
Directive (1994-2000), drawn up following the provisions in its Article 17(1). The analysis of these reports,
still in process, should provide the Commission with information on the measures established by Member
States to fulfil the duties set up by the Habitats Directive as regards the strict protection afforded to
cetacean species. Would the analysis of this information lead to the conclusion that there is a failure to
comply with Community law protecting cetaceans,
taking appropriate
initiatives.

the Commission envisages

3. While trials with passive deterrents have been inconclusive at this stage, the results of the testing of
use of acoustic alarms (‘pingers’) for porpoises carried out by Danish authorities seem to be highly
promising. The use of such pingers has been made mandatory since 2000 by Danish Authorities in all
Danish bottom set gillnet fishing in the North Sea in the period August-October when net fleets up to

C 110 E/22

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

300 meters are used. This regulation applies in practice to wreck gillnet fishing, in which particularly high
rates of by-catches had been observed. The Commission is not aware of any other Danish fisheries
regulation that would address specifically by-catches of harbour porpoises.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 93.
(2) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 81.
(3) 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.

(2003/C 110 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1631/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: VAT and financial services

The Commission began to study the feasibility of applying VAT to financial services,

1.
insurance,
applying VAT to financial services and what studies are still underway?

including
in 1993. Could it please indicate what studies have been completed on the feasibility of

Could the Commission state whether it has organised any conferences or seminars on the feasibility

2.
of applying VAT to financial services and what conclusions were drawn?

Has the Commission conducted any discussions (a) internally, (b) in the context of the European
3.
Union VAT Committee, or (c) with the Ecofin Council on the feasibility of applying VAT to financial
services, and, if so, what was the outcome?

Has the Commission had the opportunity to consider any reports by consultants on the feasibility of

4.
applying VAT to financial services and, if so, what was the outcome?

Is the Commission planning to bring forward any proposals on the application of VAT to financial

5.
services?

6.

Does the Commission believe that it would be desirable to apply VAT to financial services?

Could the Commission please indicate the composition of the European Union VAT Committee, the

7.
date of the next meeting and the subjects on the agenda for the next meeting?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

The Commission maintains the belief that VAT exemptions, in principle, should be minimised to the
greatest extent possible. By their nature they cause distortion and increase the burdens on industry and tax
authorities. The exemption for financial services is no exception to this policy.

Accordingly, the Commission engaged consultants Ernst & Young to identify possible ways for taxing
financial services, as the first part of an ongoing programme of research into the treatment of financial
services under the VAT regime. These studies, which included a simulation of a cash flow system of VAT
for these services, were completed in 1998. The resultant report is available on the Europa website (1).

Various conferences were organised with the participation of industry and Member States at that time. The
general view was that although a cash flow system would in principle ensure taxation of the supplies in
question,
its introduction and operation would entail considerable burdens on both industry and tax
authorities. There could also be a significant impact on prices for final consumers. Furthermore, although
the distortions presented by the current system would be addressed in respect of activity within the
internal market, major distortion could arise between Community based institutions and competitors based
in third countries.