WRITTEN QUESTION E-0797/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Objective information from the Commission on the environmental damage of industrial farming of carnivorous fish.
Date: 2003-03-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aquaculture, environmental impact, mollusc, sustainable development, water protection

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/45

In addition, a Renewable Energy Partnership has been concluded in Mallorca to promote the use of wind
power as part of the Commission’s Campaign for Take Off to promote the effective take up of renewable
energies in the Community.

The Commission is not aware of any request by Member States for derogations under Article 24.3 of
Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules
for the internal market in electricity.

The new draft Directive on common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) maintains (Article 26.1)
the possibility for Member States to ask for a derogation such as that foreseen in Article 24.3 of Directive
96/92/EC. This possibility is present in the text of the Common Position (EC) No 5/2003 adopted by the
Council on 3 February 2003 (2). Article 24 of the Common Position in fact concerns safeguards measures
to be adopted in emergency situations.

Clearly however a definitive response to this point must await final adoption of the draft Directive
expected shortly.

(1) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.
(2) OJ C 50 E, 4.3.2003.

(2004/C 65 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0797/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Objective information from the Commission on the environmental damage of industrial farming

of carnivorous fish

In his reply to my Written Question E-0009/2003 (1) the Commission repeated its asseveration (see the
reply to question E-2675/02 (2)) that I had expressed the view that ‘fish farming is a principal threat to the
sustainable development of fisheries’, which is simply untrue, as I explained in question E-0009/2003 and
reiterate here.

In Portugal, the production of clams, for example, has traditionally been far more important than the
farming of carnivorous fish, employing a very large number of (cid:1) generally low-paid (cid:1) workers, and
making a major contribution to their incomes; it is now threatened by tourism-related pollution (e.g. at Ria
Formosa), but this is an issue on which the Commission and its ‘fish farming strategy’ are completely
silent.

Reports from the academic community, the major environmental organisations and the press flatly
contradict the Commission’s defence of the farming of carnivorous fish both in its Parliamentary replies
and in its ‘strategy’.

This being so, when does the Commission intend to provide objective, independent data on the damage to
sustainable fisheries caused by the farming of carnivorous fish?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 167.
(2) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 40.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

As already pointed out in reply to the two previous written questions on the same subject from the
Honourable Member (E-2675/02 and E-0009/03) the Commission’s opinion on aquaculture, be it intensive
fish farming, or extensive bivalve cultivation,
is expressed by its Community strategy for sustainable
development of European aquaculture (1). The strategy has been welcomed by both the Parliament and the
Council, respectively on 16 and 28 January 2003.

C 65 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

The concerns expressed by the Honourable Member on the impact that aquaculture may have on the
aquatic ecosystem are addressed in the strategy, together with the measures that, in the opinion of the
Commission, are needed to allow for the establishment of an environmentally sound industry.

Concerning the specific case of the pollution generated by tourism on the shellfish waters, these are tackled
in the framework of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish
waters (2). The Directive asks the Member States to designate shellfish waters, and to establish programmes
in order to reduce pollution in these waters.

(1) COM(2002) 511 final.
(2) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979.

(2004/C 65 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI),
Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI)
and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Persecution by the Vietnamese authorities of Dr Que Nguyen and compliance with the UN Human

Rights Commission’s concluding observations of 27 July 2002

Dr Que Nguyen is one of the most prestigious internationally recognised figures in democratic, non-violent
Vietnamese circles.

Some facts about Dr Que Nguyen: he was first detained (and also held in isolation and tortured) from
1978-1988, on account of his ceaseless activities.

In 1990, after founding the ‘Non-violent Movement for Human Rights’ and publishing, on 11 May of that
year, the Movement’s manifesto, which called for the upholding of human rights and for political pluralism
and free elections, he was arrested and held in isolation; in 1991, following a half-hour sham trial, he was
for having ‘sought to overthrow the
sentenced to 20 years in prison plus five years’ house arrest
government’.

In 1995 he was awarded the Robert Kennedy Human Rights Award by the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial;
he has on a number of occasions been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and included on Amnesty
International’s prisoners-of-conscience list.

In 1998, following a government amnesty, he was placed under house arrest (where he remains to this
day) for reasons including his adamant refusal to be expelled from Vietnam, but he still suffers intimidation
and he is constantly prevented by the Vietnamese security forces from freely expressing his thoughts, being
denied the use of the telephone and the Internet.

On 20 September 2002, on the eve of the ‘World Day for Freedom and Democracy in Vietnam too’,
which had been organised by the Transnational Radical Party (of which Dr Que’s brother, Dr Quan
Nguyen, had become a member), Dr Que was assaulted in his own home by the Vietnamese security
forces, who searched for his papers and articles,
including the one in which he had condemned the
treatment inflicted on the Montagnard refugees in Cambodia (whom the Cambodian Government had
handed over to the Vietnamese authorities and of whom nothing more has been heard) and then sought to
arrest him for having insisted upon his rights.

He suffers from high blood pressure and serious health problems affecting his kidneys, and any further
persecution by the Vietnamese Government may damage his health for good.

In view of the above facts, will the Commission say whether:

(cid:1) it considers Dr Que’s treatment by the Vietnamese Government to be tolerable and compatible with
observance of the UN ’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the UN’s International Pact on
Civil Rights, which Vietnam has ratified?