WRITTEN QUESTION P-2991/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Ban on mechanised cockle fishing in the Wadden Sea.
Date: 2003-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, bird, coastal region, environmental protection, fishing rights, industrial fishing, mollusc, protected area

C 70 E/186

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(2004/C 70 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2991/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Ban on mechanised cockle fishing in the Wadden Sea

(6 October 2003)

Further to my question P-2375/03 (1) of 10 July on mortality among eider ducks resulting from fishing for
shellfish in the Wadden Sea, I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the ‘Natuurbalans’ of the
the
Netherlands National
provisional conclusions of the assessment of the impact of fishing for shellfish (EVA II).

Institute for Public Health and the Environment

(RIVM), which sets out

The second phase (1988-2003) of the study of the effects of fishing for shellfish in Netherlands coastal
waters (EVA II) contains a number of important provisional results:

(cid:1) Mussel beds on the flats in the eastern part of the Wadden Sea have recently recovered. This has been
found to be partly as a result of the creation of areas in which fishing for shellfish was not permitted.

(cid:1) Mussel bed fishing has been found not to be favourable to the development of beds.

(cid:1) Increased mortality among eider ducks has been found to be caused by a shortage of suitable food.

(cid:1) The system of food reserves assists the survival of shellfish-eating birds in thin years. The fact that
numbers of eider ducks and oyster catchers in the Wadden Sea has, nevertheless, declined may point
to inadequate reserves. The effect of the presence of mussel parks in the Wadden Sea on total supplies
of shellfish depends on their management. During the period 1970-1980 the way in which they were
managed resulted in parks being well stocked with mussels (and possibly an increase in the number of
eider ducks). As a consequence of the sea bed being turned over by mechanised cockle fishing
methods, changes in the sediment have been appearing locally within a short space of time, which
result in cockles growing less quickly. That means less food for shellfish-eating birds like the eider
duck. The species has been declining in numbers since 1996. Mortality among eider ducks has been
linked in recent years to the shortage of food in the form of shellfish. According to the latest count in
2003, eider ducks are increasingly concentrated in the Wadden Sea, an area protected under the Birds
Directive. Seven other species of breeding bird and eight winter visitors (knots, oyster catchers) are
also declining in numbers.

Is the Commission prepared to ban mechanised cockle fishing in the Wadden Sea now that its negative
impact has been scientifically established?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 256.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

As indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s written question P-2375/03, the Commission has
opened cases relating to, inter alia, the adverse effects of shellfish harvesting in the Wadden Sea on the
populations of wild birds. The Wadden Sea has been designated by the Netherlands as a special protection
area under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and has
been put forward as a proposed site of Community importance under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). The Commission has
taken note of the information provided by the Honourable Member regarding the possible negative effects
of these activities on these birds.

In the framework of
Netherlands.

the mentioned cases,

the Commission has recently addressed a letter to the

The Commission will examine all information that will be provided by the Dutch authorities, including the
results of the study mentioned by the Honourable Member once these become definitive, and will then
consider the possible further steps to be taken in this context.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.