WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Shrimp fishing in Svalbard.
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Norway, common fisheries policy, fishing agreement, fishing grounds, fishing industry, fishing regulations, negotiation of an agreement (EU)

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/271

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The site ‘Nationalpark Donau-Auen (Wiener Teil)’ (AT1301000) was designated by Austria as a special
protection area (SPA) under the Birds Directive (1) and proposed as a site of community interest (SCI) under
the Habitats Directive (2). It has a size of 2 258 hectares (ha). Neighbouring that site, the site ‘Donau-Auen
östlich von Wien’ in Lower Austria was designated as SPA (AT1204V00) with a size of 9 172 ha and
proposed as an SCI (AT1204000) with a size of 9 579 ha. Both types of sites, SPAs and SCIs, make up the
Natura 2000 network.

Referring to the specific questions of the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to answer as
follows:

(cid:1) It is not permissible under Community law to reduce the surface of a Natura 2000 site in order to
carry out an infrastructure project. The obligations of a Member State under the respective EU-nature
legislation cannot be avoided that way. The delimitation of Natura 2000 sites needs to be done on a
purely scientific basis, based on the occurrences and needs of species and habitats of Community
interest.

(cid:1) The compatibility of a motorway development with the requirement of EU nature legislation needs to
be judged on a case by case basis. Wherever a proposed plan or project is likely to affect a Natura
2000 site, the project must be subject to an assessement in accordance with the provisions of Article 6
of the Habitats Directive. This provides substantive and procedural safeguards to ensure that damaging
developments are not allowed to affect Natura 2000 sites unless they can be justified, in the absence
of alternative solutions, to be of overriding public interest. Where the site concerned hosts a priority
natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those
relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment, or,
to other imperative reasons of
overriding public interest.

further to an opinion from the Commission,

(cid:1) An assessment according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive needs to be done whenever a plan or
project is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. If this is the case, it is of no
relevance where this plan or project is located. It might be inside or outside the Natura 2000 site.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds as modified by Commission

Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(2004/C 88 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/04

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

Subject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

(5 April 2004)

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).
Furthermore, 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. In its reply to
my question E-3581/03 (2), it stated that ‘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,’ and continued ‘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,

C 88 E/272

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

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 [sic] 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.’

Given that there has still been no progress whatever made and that 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, is the Commission aware of the damage being done to the EU fleet by the
currently dormant state of negotiations with Norway?

Since the EU fleet’s sole request is for a greater fishing presence at any one time in the area in question,
and Norway may possibly agree to this, does the Commission not believe that at this point, it would be
appropriate to bring forward the high level meeting scheduled for June, so as to put an end to this very
prejudicial situation as soon as humanly possible?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 172.
(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 830.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission must reiterate the point that discussions with Norway have taken place on a number of
occasions in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issue of the shrimp fishing by the Community fleet at
Svalbard. Norway’s position on this matter has remained unchanged for some time despite the
Commission’s intervention. Norway continues to seek improved trade conditions for Norwegian exports
of shrimp in return for any improved access conditions for Community vessels.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Community and Norway will next be having high level discussions in
June 2004, informal contacts on the shrimp fishing conditions take place on a continuous basis with
Norway. The Commission already works closely with the Member States in order to ensure the best
distribution of available fishing days. The Commission last met with the Member States on this matter in
March 2004.

The Commission is acutely aware of the problems encountered by certain Member States with respect to
their fishing possibilities. It would like to see real improvements in the fishing conditions. The Commission
is not of the opinion that it would help the Community’s position in this respect if the high level
discussions were brought forward to an earlier date.

(2004/C 88 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1023/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Modernisation of the Portuguese fishing fleet

(5 April 2004)

The Commission knows that there are major projects for modernising the fishing fleet registered in the
Portuguese ports of Peniche, Nazaré, Sesimbra and Setúbal, where coastal and small-scale fishing is of
major importance to the local population and to regional development. The Commission is also aware of
the project to build a new canning factory in Setúbal. For this reason, it is unacceptable to suspend the
submission of fresh applications under the MARE Programme (Programme for the sustainable development
of the fishery sector, CSF III) for 2000/2006, which is what the Portuguese Government has just done with
its Decree No 252/2004 of 8 March, for the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region, arguing a lack of available
funding.