WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Lists of vessels authorised to fish using drift nets.
C 26 E/34 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 In the case at issue, public funds are being managed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2468/98 because ü even if the premiums paid remain below the limits set by Community legislation ü Greece pays its 25 % share. (2001/C 26 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/00 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Lists of vessels authorised to fish using drift nets (11 February 2000) In its reply of 5 January 2000 to Question P-2481/99 (1)on the Commissionís interpretation of compliance with Regulation (EEC) No 1239/98 (2) the point is made that áwhen checks are carried out to ensure that the 60 % figure is being adhered to ( ), all the vessels which used drift nets during the reference period specified in the above regulation must be taken into considerationí. Since the Commission is convinced that this is the way in which the regulation is to be interpreted (the purpose thereof being to ensure that drift-net fishing is gradually abandoned), would the Commission not agree that: ü the consequence of its interpretation is that the same vessels are being counted as many as three times (once for each year of the 1995-1997 reference period) when the basic listing of the vessels which have fished with drift nets is drawn up with a view to achieving a 40 % reduction in 1998? ü in order to dispel such doubts once and for all, can the Commission (as requested by means of Written Question E-1561/99 (3) to which no reply has been received) supply a list of the vessels authorised to fish using drift nets in 1995, 1996 and 1997 and a list of the vessels authorised to fish using drift nets in 1998 and 1999, following the entry into force of the regulation in question? (1) OJ C 219 E, 1. 8. 2000, p. 173. (2) OJ L 171, 17. 6. 1998, p. 1. (3) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000, p. 34. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 March 2000) Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources, a total ban on using drift-nets to catch certain (in particular highly migratory) species will enter into force on 1 January 2002. In 1998 Member States were required to reduce their authorised drift-net fleets to 60 % of the vessels which used such gear during the 1995-1997 reference period. Since then, they have been required to submit a list of authorised vessels each year. The Council thus made provision for phasing out drift-net fishing in two stages after the 1995-1997 reference period, reducing the fleet by 40 % from 1998 and abolishing it completely by the 2002 deadline. In order to counter the socio-economic effects of abolition, the Council authorised each Member State to draw up a conversion plan. The 1998 limit is calculated on the basis of Member Statesí named vessel lists for each of the three reference years. Because the three annual lists for each Member State are compared in order to determine the number of reference vessels subject to the 40 % reduction, the same vessel cannot be taken into account more than once. Each Member Stateís list of authorised vessels for 1998 is based on this method. As has been stressed several times in reply to the Honourable Memberís written questions, the Commission has no proof that Member States are failing to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98. 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/35 In its answer to Written Questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99, (1) the Commission has already provided the Honourable Member with a breakdown, by Member State, of vessels used in 1995-97 and those authorised for 1998-1999. As already stated in its answer to Written Question E-2484/99 from Mr Ortuondo Larrea (2), the Commission cannot publish the named vessel list because Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (3) requires data received under that Regulation to be treated in a confidential manner. Each Member Stateís supervisory authorities have the information needed to ensure compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98. (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000, p. 34. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 145. (3) OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993. (2001/C 26 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/00 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission Subject: The environmental situation in the Moncayo nature park (15 February 2000) The area of the Moncayo nature park in the autonomous community of Aragon which falls within the province of Soria is starting to resemble an áelectricity parkí. As a result of the negligent actions of the authorities, it now contains six wind farms, 31 km of power lines and miles of 220 kw power lines with substations. The environmental interest of the area is recognised at Community level through the LIFE programme for the protection of the bearded vultures which populate the Sorian area. No notice was given of the environmental impact assessment in the Official Gazette of Castille and León of 9 July 1998, and the government of Castille and León drastically and unilaterally altered the environmental impact statement (1) without consulting or informing the interested parties. This has resulted in the current situation whereby, with no official change of use being made, the said power lines have been sited in the Caæada Real del Moncayo (a livestock trail running through the park), thereby seriously jeopardising the viability of the LIFE programme in the area. These irregularities have been the subject of more than 1500 complaints, and an administrative appeal is pending. Could the Commission confirm whether the Spanish Government has correctly transposed Directive 85/ 337/EEC (2), most recently amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (3), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment? Is it the case that where changes are made to an environmental impact statement that has already been approved, full compliance with the directive requires a new procedure to be started from the point at which the changes were made? Does the LIFE programme for the protection of bearded vultures in the area of Moncayo which is part of Aragon make any provision for protection of these birds in neighbouring areas which are part of other autonomous communities? Is there any measure that would oblige the companies concerned to undo the unnecessary alterations made to the area pending resolution of the administrative appeals currently under way? (1) Statement published in the Official Gazette of Castille and León (B. O. C. y L) of 6 November 1998. (2) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (3) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997, p. 5