WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/02 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Surplus prawn-fishing capacity in the Netherlands.
Date: 2002-08-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Netherlands, common fisheries policy, crustacean, fishing fleet, modernisation aid, restriction on competition, shipbuilding

C 92 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Does the Commission realise that Omori Katsuhisa’s execution could very well take place within the next
few days? Has it already called on the Japanese authorities not to carry out that execution or that of others
sentenced to death? What moves has it made, or what moves does it intend to make, to persuade the
Japanese Government to introduce a moratorium on capital punishment, as Parliament called for in the
resolution it adopted in June 2002?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Commission has actively supported the Union’s efforts to work for the abolition of the death penalty
in Japan. Union Heads of Mission prepared a report on the death penalty in Japan in December 2001. An
Union troika démarche, addressed to the Japanese Minister of Justice, was subsequently carried out on
18 February 2002 with a full explanation of the Union’s position on the death penalty.

Moreover, in February 2002, the Union Troika in Tokyo was given a permanent mandate to carry out
démarches on the death penalty and is engaged in an active dialogue with the Japanese Parliamentary
League for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. The subject is kept under review by the Heads of Mission
with a view to further initiatives, including on this particular case.

As regards M. Omori Katsuhisa, the Commission notes that the Japanese Ministry of Justice announces
executions after they have taken place. The fact that no such announcement has been made suggests that
the execution has not yet been carried out.

Mr Omori Katsuhisa has appealed for a retrial in July 2002, and the Parliamentary League has requested
the Ministry of Justice not to execute Mr Omori Katsuhisa before the end of the retrial. Mr. Kamei, the
President of the Parliamentary League, has also requested Justice Minister Morayama not to execute
Mr Omori Katsuhisa outside the session period of the Japanese Parliament (which has ended).

(2003/C 92 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Surplus prawn-fishing capacity in the Netherlands

(20 August 2002)

The Netherlands has disregarded the targets of its MAGP IV regarding prawn boats and, in recent years,
has created a considerable amount of surplus capacity by building new vessels. According to the
Netherlands fishing industry’s newspaper, the target for 1993 was 2 812 GT/10 318 kW. However, the
capacity of the Netherlands prawn-fishing fleet in 2001 stood at 4 423 GT/16 931 kW.

Moreover, funds have been used to build new vessels which were granted for scrapping vessels, such as
large flatfish boats, in other parts of the industry.

By acting in this manner, the Netherlands’ prawn-fishing fleet has gained a considerable competitive edge.
Even if the surplus capacity is cut back at the present time, there is a risk that only the older and less
profitable units will be decommissioned. The Netherlands would have a rejuvenated fleet at its disposal
while other Member States would continue to use boats over 30 years old only.

How does the Commission intend to force the Netherlands to reduce its surplus prawn-fishing

1.
capacity?

How does the Commission intend to prevent the competitive advantages gained over the other
2.
Member States’ older vessels through the illegal building of new vessels being subsequently legalised
through the new structural policy?

3.
Can the Commission rule out the possibility that funds granted for reducing the Netherlands’ flatfish
fleet have been used to build new prawn boats? How does the Commission intend to punish such conduct?

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/169

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Since 1 January 1997 when a separate fleet segment for prawn boats was created in the MAGP IV for the
Netherlands, this segment has expanded predominantly by transfer of existing vessels from the 221 kW
Eurocutter segment.

The Dutch authorities have systematically transferred Eurocutter vessels abandoning fishing for species
under quota to the prawn fleet segment. Hence the apparent expansion of the prawn fleet segment, to
which only four newly built vessels (total capacity roughly 200 GT) have been added since 1987.

The combined capacity of the two segments has been stable over the period 1997-02 owing precisely to
the granting of scrapping premiums for cutter segment vessels offered for withdrawal.

In response to the Honourable Member’s specific questions:

1. The Commission considers that reduction of surplus prawn-fishing capacity can be ensured by the
Netherlands’ recent adoption of an entry exit ratio of 1:1,35 and of an exit plan recently notified to
the Commission and under examination.

2. The Netherlands has granted no construction or fleet modernisation aid during MAGP IV. The
‘Prawner 2000’ project was abandoned because failure to comply with the segment objective meant
that public aid could not be given. Under the new policy new construction has no bearing on
establishment of the reference levels, which depend only on the objectives previously set for the
MAGP IVs.

3. The Commission can rule out, except as an infringement of the Community rules, the likelihood of
direct use of scrapping aid for vessel construction, since all aid for withdrawal involves withdrawal of
the fishing licence so that the corresponding capacity cannot be used.

(2003/C 92 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2433/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Management of North Sea fish stocks

How can the Commission justify its proposals to open the North Sea for a ‘free for all’ when there is
clearly insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that the survival of key stocks will be protected?

Will the Commission rethink its potentially devastating proposal under the CFP reforms that the North Sea
will only be governed by a TACs and quotas regime, which in the light of its written answer P-1902/02 (1),
has been based on a lack of scientific advice and ‘insufficient information’?

The Commission has admitted that:

1. Very little is known about the abundance and status of non-quota species in the North Sea;

2. Many non-quota species would ‘almost certainly’ incur by-catches of species subject to quotas, many

of which are already fully utilised and over-fished, some with the need for recovery measures;

3. There is insufficient information to establish the commercial value of non-quota species.