WRITTEN QUESTION P-0742/03 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compensation to EU fishermen and shipowners for temporary cessation of activity.
Date: 2003-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FIFG, common fisheries policy, fishing fleet, fishing industry, indemnification, structural policy

C 242 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

assurance of a high level of consumer protection, and is therefore not directly applicable. Similarly,
Article 5(1) sets out a framework for lawmakers, stipulating that food law shall pursue one or more general
objectives,
interests. Article 7(1), concerning the precautionary
principle, relates to circumstances where, following an assessment of available information, the possibility
of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists. The problem raised by the
Honourable Member does not reflect this type of situation.

including the protection of consumers’

As regards the labelling rules applicable in general to all foodstuffs, the Commission has just launched an
evaluation of
in particular Directive 2000/13/EC, with a view
subsequently to proposing relevant adaptations aimed at ensuring that consumers are given the best
possible information.

the legislation currently in force,

(2003/C 242 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0742/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Compensation to EU fishermen and shipowners for temporary cessation of activity

Article 16 of the current FIFG regulation (2792/1999 (1)) describes a number of conditions under which
Member States are allowed to compensate fishermen and shipowners for the temporary cessation of
activities.

How often has this measure been used by the Member States?

For each time that compensation has been awarded, can the Commission indicate:

(cid:1) which of the circumstances listed in Article 16 was invoked;

(cid:1) which Member State was involved, for which fishery and for what period of time;

(cid:1) how many fishermen and/or ship-owners were involved;

(cid:1) how much money was awarded, broken down by Community participation and State participation?

Is the Commission aware of any similar compensation paid by the Member State(s) without the use of
Community funds? If so, could similar information be provided?

Under the previous FIFG regulation (3699/1993 (2)), compensation was possible for temporary cessation of
activities under Article 14. Could the Commission provide similar information for any such use of funds
under that regulation?

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 346, 31.12.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

In the present programming period 2000-2006, the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) aid
foreseen for temporary cessation, compared to the total aid, is rather limited, about 3,9 %. Spain alone
represents more than 80 % of the total amount programmed for this measure.

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/171

The actual expenditure declared and reimbursed by the Commission is listed in the following table:

Member State

Total expenditure

Expenditure
reimbursed by the Commission

Reimbursement
as a percentage of total expenditure (%)

Belgium

Portugal

Spain

1,496

18,040

161,945

0,748

13,523

121,016

50

75

74,7

(EUR million)

In the case of Spain and Portugal, the aid was used to compensate fishermen and vessels owners owing to
the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, forcing about 400 vessels and about 4 000
fishermen to quit this activity.

In the case of Belgium, 60 vessels and more than 300 fishermen were granted compensation on the basis
of article 16.1(a) of the FIFG Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1) ‘unforeseeable circumstances, caused by
biological factors’.

The closure of the programmes relating to the previous programming period 1994-1999 will take place in
2003. The preliminary figures show that about EUR 54 million were granted for temporary cessation, of
which the Community part amounts to EUR 38 million (Spain EUR 31 million, Denmark EUR 4 million,
Portugal EUR 2 million and Sweden EUR 1 million).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (cid:1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2003/C 242 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0744/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Financing of the treatment of waste electronic and electrical equipment

Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical
and electronic equipment (WEEE) lays down that ‘… each producer shall be responsible for financing the
operations … relating to the waste from his own products’. Furthermore, Article 9 lays down that ‘Member
States shall ensure that, by 13 August 2005, the financing of the costs for the collection, treatment,
recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE … is to be provided for by producers. For WEEE
from products put on the market before 13 August 2005 (historical waste), the financing of the costs …
shall be provided for by the producers. Member States may, as an alternative, provide that users other than
private households also be made, partly or totally, responsible for this financing’.

In other words, the Directive referred to above lays down that the producers are responsible for financing
the collection and disposal of such waste. Recently, various Environmental Policy Agreements (EPA) have
been included by the Flemish Ministry for the Human Environment in a Flemish Government Bill. With
regard to this Directive, this concerned the implementation of the obligation to accept waste set out in the
Flemish Regulation on the Prevention and Management of Waste relating respectively to waste lead starter
batteries and waste batteries.

Article 5(2) of the EPA on waste lead starter batteries lays down that only the direct costs relating to
collection with a view to the subsequent treatment of waste lead starter batteries should be borne by the
management body. Similarly, with respect to waste batteries, the indirect costs are transferred to the local
authorities. What this means in practice is that the local authorities have to bear the indirect costs.
Accordingly, and despite the European Union Directive, the consumer/citizen in Flanders actually has to
pay for the treatment of such waste electrical and electronic equipment.