WRITTEN QUESTION E-3187/02 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Council. Heavily fisheries-dependent regions, relative stability and access to fishery resources.
Date: 2002-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Galicia, catch quota, common fisheries policy, discretionary power, eligibility criteria, eligible region, region dependent on fishing

C 155 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Does the Commission have detailed, immediately accessible information as to the timetables and routes of
these highly sensitive and hazardous loads?

Is the relevant information sent to the Commission in an absolutely transparent and reliable way by the
Member States where the convoys originate or through which they pass?

What is the Commission’s margin of assessment and intervention as regards nuclear transport vehicles’
timetables and routes, which are generated by an industry the management of which is a national
prerogative, but whose potential for danger covers the whole area of the Community and beyond?

Can the Commission guarantee the safety of these loads against all forms of attack or accident, as well as
providing all the necessary forms of medical and financial arrangements, mechanisms and interventions in
the event of a possible disaster within the area of the enlarged Community?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Commission is not responsible for operations relating to the transportation of radioactive materials.
This responsibility rests with the Member States, which must ensure that national and international
legislation on the transportation of radioactive materials is respected. The Member States, through their
competent authorities, are required to take appropriate measures to ensure the safe, secure transport of
radioactive materials.

However, neither the Member States nor the companies which transport radioactive materials are obliged
under Community legislation to provide the Commission with the timetables and routes for convoys of
nuclear fuel cycle or any other radioactive materials.

The Member States must ensure maximum safety/security for convoys of radioactive materials and any
other forms of nuclear or non-nuclear activities against attacks which are designed to disrupt them. By
cooperating with the Member States in the Standing Working Group on the safe transport of radioactive
material (1), the Commission is contributing to developing and improving legislation and the measures
needed to reduce the potential
impact of the effects of any accidents which might occur during the
transportation of radioactive materials.

(1) COM(98) 155 final.

(2003/C 155 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3187/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Heavily fisheries-dependent regions, relative stability and access to fishery resources

In its answers to questions E-0650/02 (1), E-2096/02, E-2097/02 and E-2098/02 (2), all by the author of
the present question, the Commission did not provide concrete responses on the points actually raised, and
it is therefore now necessary to raise these subjects again. The intention of those questions was: to obtain
information from the Commission on the criteria required for an EU region to be classified as heavily
fisheries-dependent for purposes of the allocation of catch possibilities; and to ask the Commission
whether it considers, in the light of the Community legal principle of progressive adaptation, that the list
of heavily fisheries-dependent regions, which has remained unchanged for 20 years, should be updated,
with the addition of new regions in this category in the wake of the successive accessions of new Member
States (notably Spain and Portugal).

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/107

The Commission did not, however, give a clear reply. It simply stated: ‘The concept of fisheries dependence
is defined in Article 4(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (3) dealing with structural aid to the
fisheries sector in Objective 2 regions. It does not appear in Council regulations such as those dealing with
the allocation of fishing opportunities at Community level and their subdivision into national quotas
allocated between Member States.’

In its resolution adopted in The Hague on 3 November 1976, the Council made express reference to the
importance of taking account of the ‘vital needs’ of fisheries-dependent communities in the implementation
of the CFP. The same philosophy was present in the Council’s declaration of 30 May 1980, in which it laid
down explicit criteria for the allocation of quotas among Member States: traditional fisheries activities,
specific needs of regions with heavily fisheries-dependent communities, and loss of catch possibilities in
third-country waters. These criteria constitute the system for allocating fisheries quotas under the ‘relative
stability’ regime. Under these criteria, Greenland, Ireland and the northern part of Great Britain were
declared to be heavily fisheries-dependent areas, thereafter benefiting from the so-called ‘principle’ of
relative stability. This mechanism has continued up to the present, with no changes and no inclusion of
further areas in the successive basic regulations.

Does the Council not consider that the concept of a heavily fisheries-dependent region is not to be found
solely in Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 governing the Structural Funds, but was also earlier implied in the
Council’s own measures on the allocation of catch possibilities, as reflected today in the recitals of the
current regulation, i.e. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (4)?

Given the criteria employed by the Council in 1980 for the allocation of catch possibilities, does the
Council not consider that a region like Galicia (cid:1) which the Commission has, in its answers, recognised to
be heavily fisheries-dependent (cid:1) should also be able to benefit from a new allocation of catch possibilities,
following the conclusion of the transition periods under the Act of Accession and on the basis of those
same criteria, especially in the wake of the disappearance of catch possibilities in third-country waters such
as those of Morocco?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 14.
(2) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 182.
(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999. p. 1.
(4) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Reply

(20 February 2003)

In its resolution of 3 November 1976 (1) the Council agreed that, as from 1 January 1977, Member
1.
States would extend the limits of their fishing zones in the North Sea and North Atlantic to 200 miles by
means of concerted action.

2.
In annex VII to the resolution the Council recognised the so-called ‘Hague preferences’ in order to
take account of the needs of certain local communities in the Community particularly dependent upon
fisheries.

3.
On 25 January 1983 the Council agreed on the allocation of fishing possibilities in Community
waters (Council Regulation No 172/83) where fishing possibilities were allocated in accordance with the
principle of relative stability. According to the Council’s declaration of 30 May 1980 (2), this principle is
based on traditional fishing activities, on the special needs of the fisheries dependent regions and on the
loss of catch potential
losses). As it will be seen, the Hague
preferences were only one of the parameters determining relative stability. It is disputed within the Council
to which extent they can be invoked on top of relative stability.

in third country waters (jurisdictional

Fishing possibilities for Spain and Portugal were determined in the Act of Accession of 1985 and

4.
integrated into the relative stability keys.

5.
In recent years (since 1989) the Council has reconciled the conflicting interests and, where relevant,
taken into account the interests of local populations dependent on fishing. The Court of Justice has stated
that such quota allocations are adopted on the basis of
the Council’s discretionary powers under
Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 3760/92. They do not depend on whether Annex VII to the Hague
resolution was properly adopted (Case C-4/96).

C 155 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

The Council is currently examining the question of relative stability as part of the reform of the
6.
Common Fisheries Policy. At this stage of the negotiations the Council has not agreed to constrain its
discretionary power to decide on the allocation keys. Neither has it established a link between the Hague
preferences and the principle of equal access for Spain to the Community’ fishing zone on 1 January 2003.

(1) OJ C 105, 7.5.1981.
(2) OJ C 158, 27.6.1980.

(2003/C 155 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3188/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Protection of the Almenara marshland site of Community interest (Spain)

At the beginning of 2000, the author of the present question complained to the Commission that the
Almenara marshland area (‘Marjal de Almenara’) in Spain, which had applied to be classified as a site of
Community interest (SCI), was under repeated attack from environmentally damaging agricultural practices
(E-0520/00 (1)). At the time, the Commission said it would make representations to the Spanish authorities.
However, no change of attitude has been forthcoming: far from it, the protected area initially proposed by
Spain for the marshland has been reduced by approximately 85 000 m2 (see the draft inventory of
wetlands issued under the auspices of the Valencia regional government, which is the basic reference for
the final delimitation of the SCI for Natura 2000).

This reduction in the area allocated to the protected natural area has been justified essentially on planning
grounds. The developer Inmuebles WJK S.L. has contracted another company, Terra Canet S.A., to carry
out the initial work. This company is now draining and eliminating vegetation from a section (85 000 m2)
of the Almenara marshland, at the isolated location of the beach of Almardá de Sagunto.

The Commission is in possession of the following reports:

(cid:1) an eco-toxicological report from the Institute of Legal Medicine attached to the regional

justice

ministry;

(cid:1) a report by the expert Dr Rosselló Verger, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of

Valencia;

(cid:1) a report by Mrs Eulalia Sanjaume, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Valencia.

In these reports, the government is urged to confer protected status on the 85 000 m2 of marshland now
being developed. They stress the ‘particular environmental value’ of the Almardà beach area, and call for
the existing planning schemes to be modified so as to ensure its preservation.

In view of
these circumstances and the information contained in the above documents: Does the
Commission intend to agree that only a part of this marshland should be defined as a site of Community
interest, thus excluding the above 85 000 m2 in spite of their accredited ecological importance?

What action will the Commission take to ensure the preservation of the protected species living in the part
of the marshland which is at present being developed?

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 55.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Honourable Member has expressed her concerns regarding the criteria used by the Spanish authorities
to propose the site ‘Marjal de Almenara’ as a Site of Community Importance (SCI). The Honourable
Member states that
the autonomous community of Valencia has included this site in its Wetlands
Catalogue with a larger area than the site proposed as a site of Community interest.