WRITTEN QUESTION E-2814/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Fleet reductions in third countries.
Date: 2002-10-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cessation of trading, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing industry, third country

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/123

(2003/C 137 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2810/02

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: North Sea gill net fishery

Norwegian legislation implementing the EU/Norway Agreement on technical measures for 2002 in the
North Sea is currently in place, and that legislation provides that the Norwegians may apply their 148 mm
gill net rule outside the Norwegian four-mile zone. Fishermen from the north-east of England are
extremely concerned that they must apply that rule from the shore and believe that their livelihoods are
threatened as a result of this.

Could the Commission comment on the possibility that a derogation for EC inshore fishermen similar to
that for Norwegian fishermen will be adopted in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2002)

In a meeting between the Commission and Norway of 21 June 2001, Norway informed the Community of
their intention to enact legislation requiring a minimum mesh size of static gears of 148 mm when fishing
for cod, haddock, saithe, plaice ling, pollack and hake in the Norwegian Economic Zone. Similarly,
the Community informed Norway of their intention to enact legislation requiring a minimum mesh size of
static gears of 140 mm when fishing for cod in Community waters of the North Sea. This does not
constitute an agreement with Norway but is a simple exchange of information on the respective positions
of the two parties.

it excludes reference to the zone
Since Norway’s position refers to the Norwegian Economic Zone,
extending four miles from Norwegian baselines since the latter is not included in the Economic Zone.
Norway has informed the Commission that there are no rules defining mesh sizes to be used in static gears
when fishing for cod etc. within this region. This is Norway’s decision and it lies within their legal
competence to take such a position.

The Commission is reluctant to propose that the Norwegian situation should be mirrored in Community
law in which the mesh size of 140 mm,
in Community waters and,
of course, is applicable to Norwegian fishing activity within these waters.

is applicable ‘up to the beach’

However, the Commission is concerned that the lack of Norwegian Regulation may result in fishing
practices which are deleterious for North Sea cod and it intends to raise this matter in this year’s
consultations with Norway on the management of joint fish stocks.

(2003/C 137 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2814/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Fleet reductions in third countries

The proposed CFP reform adopted by the Commission envisages the scrapping of 8 000 vessels and the
loss of 28 000 fishermen’s jobs. The Commission justifies these massive cuts on the basis of the difficult
situation of fishing stocks.

However, responsible fishing and preservation of stocks need to be international commitments, and it
would be of little use for the Community to adopt drastic measures if other ‘fishing powers’ do not adopt
the same approach.

C 137 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

Does the Commission know if these other countries (China, Japan, the Philippines, Peru, Chile, Iceland,
Russia, Norway, etc.) have established similar unilateral measures involving drastic fleet and job reductions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2002)

There has been a common misunderstanding that the Commission is proposing the compulsory scrapping
of huge numbers of vessels. This misunderstanding stems from the publication of some Commission
budgetary calculations. These calculations were made only to illustrate the possible and hypothetical effects
of a scrapping scheme. In fact, within the framework of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),
the Commission’s proposals are to reduce fishing effort and to end compulsory scrapping programmes.
In other words, the Commission is not proposing that a certain number of vessels should be scrapped.
How many vessels will be scrapped depends on the choice made by the vessel owners. There will be
improved provision for decommissioning through the scrapping fund should Member States wish to use it,
along with an entry/exit system for replacement vessels.

The Commission does not collect data on the evolution of non-Member State fleets (with the exception of
candidate countries for accession) and is not in the position to comment either on trends of fleets or on
management tools implemented by third countries to reduce the size of their fleets and the impact that
these reductions might have on employment.

(2003/C 137 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2830/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Military manoeuvres involving Spain and NATO in Fuerteventura (Canaries)

During the last two weeks of September 2002 the seas off the island of Fuerteventura in the Canaries (cid:1)
one of the EU’s outlying regions (cid:1) were the scene of a series of military manoeuvres, organised by the
Spanish Ministry of Defence with NATO participation.

These quite disproportionate activities provoked considerable surprise among local civilians and tourists on
the island, and also surprised the Canaries authorities, who had not been officially informed that the
manoeuvres would take place. Meanwhile, about a score of the rare cetaceans which inhabit the seas off
the Canaries were washed up dead on the coasts of Fuerteventura.

Despite the acute sensitivities of the local population, the surprise of the tourists and the political
representations made
to the Spanish authorities,
the manoeuvres went on.

in consequence by the Canaries

institutions

In whatever circumstances, given that this was a defence-related event falling within the scope of the
Community legislation on the common foreign and security policy, and, specifically, Articles 21 and 28 of
the Treaty on European Union,

1. Will the Council suggest to the Spanish government and NATO that they should take the necessary
action to provide compensation for the economic and social damage arising to the island of
Fuerteventura, and take all steps to ensure that this incident is not repeated

2. Will the Council ensure, in the context of EU/NATO relations, that military manoeuvres are planned
so that environmental considerations are taken into account and significant ecological consequences
are avoided?