WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Shrimp fishing in Svalbard.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, fishing area, fishing fleet, fishing industry, fishing regulations

C 78 E/830

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Derogations are permissible under Article 9 of the Directive for the purpose of, ‘inter alia’, preventing
3.
‘serious damage to crops,
livestock, forests, fisheries and water’. It is the Member States who decide
whether the application of a derogation is necessary, provided that there is no other satisfactory solution.

The possibilities for use of derogations are restricted. They must be justified in relation to the overall
4.
objectives of the Directive and comply with the specific conditions for derogations described in Article 9
of Directive 79/409/EEC. Non-respect of any one of these conditions may render a derogation invalid.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) Key concepts of Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC (cid:1) Period of Reproduction and prenuptial Migration of Annex

II Bird Species in the EU, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/directive/intro_en.pdf

(2004/C 78 E/0883)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/03

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

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

Svalbard shrimp fishing by the Community fleet is seriously impeded by the obligation that no more than
four EU fishing fleet units be present at any one time. This practice has been imposed for some years, and
there is thus a danger that it will become established, with all the negative consequences it presupposes for
the Community fleet, which is unable to take up the full fishing effort allocated to it yearly (519 days).
In addition, this limitation is imposed in the brief months in which access can be had to the region, due to
the adverse weather conditions which prevail there for most of the year. The Commission’s reply of 8 May
2002 to my previous Written Question E-1037/02 (1) stated that it was fully aware of the problems which
the situation of the Svalbard shrimp fishery posed for the Member States concerned, and that it would
‘continue to endeavour to engage the Norwegian authorities in a dialogue, which will lead to improved
access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet’. No progress whatever has been forthcoming, and
certain Community fleets, e.g. the fleet working in NAFO, have seen their catches seriously reduced, which
means that an additional effort to find alternatives is called for.

Can the Commission tell me why there have been no improvements in the situation of the Community
shrimp fleet?

Given that the fishing effort is already limited by the number of vessels, can the Commission not negotiate
the abolition of the ‘at any one time’ obligation, or simply not accept it?

Do the EU’s bilateral relations with Norway not permit of a reasonable improvement of the situation for
our shrimp fleet?

What steps has the Commission taken to improve the presence of the Community shrimp fleet in
Svalbard?

What new steps is it intending to take so as to improve the current situation which, from any point of
view, is unsatisfactory?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 172.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The question of improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet fishing in the Svalbard area
has been discussed with Norway on several occasions and most recently at a high level meeting in March
2003.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/831

Norway is not willing to consider an increase in fishing days but has indicated that they could consider an
increase in the number of vessels allowed in the area at the same time. However, they link such an
increase in the number of vessels with, for them, a satisfactory solution to a number of other outstanding
issues, including improved conditions for Norwegian export of shrimp to the Union.

The Commission has agreed with Norway to have a high level meeting again in principal in June 2004 to
continue the dialogue and to find among other issues a satisfactory solution to the access problems for
Community vessels fishing shrimp at Svalbard.

(2004/C 78 E/0884)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view

For around 10 years, disposable packaging has been collected in Germany ‘inter alia’ as lightweight
packaging under the Dual System. As a result of the introduction of a deposit on disposable drinks
packaging (‘Dosenpfand’) on 1 October 2003, an as yet undetermined quantity of disposable drinks
containers now carries a compulsory deposit. This packaging is collected at sales points and transported
separately for subsequent recycling.

How does the Commission view this procedure, in particular when comparing the previous collection and
recycling system with the present, separate collection and recycling system from an environmental point of
view?

Does the Commission intend to carry out a comparative environmental assessment, or will Germany be
asked to submit a comparative environmental assessment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Take-back systems for packaging waste have to fulfil the criteria of Article 7 of the packaging and
packaging waste Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 (1). This
includes, in particular, the non-discriminatory access of economic operators, including importers, to such
systems. There is, however, no requirement to set up such systems in a particular way (dual systems,
deposit systems, etc.). This article only briefly refers to environmental aspects and states that requirements
regarding the protection of environmental and consumer health need to be taken into account, without
specifying in what way this must be done.

The Commission is not aware of comparative studies between dual systems and systems based on one-way
deposits. Available information, therefore, is of a qualitative nature only. One-way deposits will normally
have higher logistical requirements. These higher logistical requirements may also be associated to specific
environmental impacts. However, systems based on one-way deposits will also achieve higher return rates
and may reduce littering. Furthermore, the quality of the collected material may be better because of a
lower content of impurities than in material collected by dual systems.

The Commission has no intention of carrying out a comparative environmental assessment or requiring
Germany to carry out such an assessment because it will be difficult to obtain unambiguous results and
there is no requirement to choose the best system from an environmental point of view. Therefore, an
assessment of the environmental performance of various take-back systems would be unlikely to produce
results that would influence the assessment of the conformity of the German one-way deposits with
Community legislation. The open infringement procedure against Germany exclusively concerns the
Internal Market aspects of this article.

However, the Commission has put to debate options on how to develop producer responsibility systems
within the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Furthermore, the Commission has
launched a study on the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC and options to strengthen prevention and