WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2978/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Wild Atlantic salmon
28. 6. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 182/35 (1999/C 182/044) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2978/98 by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1998) Subject: Wild Atlantic salmon Is the Commission aware of growing public concern at the declining stock of wild Atlantic salmon, particularly the decline in numbers entering Irish and Scottish rivers, and has any action been proposed by the Commission to arrest this decline. Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1998) The Commission is aware of the public concern at the situation of Atlantic salmon and is itself seriously worried by the state of the wild salmon stocks in the North Atlantic. In the light of this situation, the North Atlantic salmon conservation organisation (NASCO), of which the Community is the largest contracting party, at its annual meeting in June 1998 agreed to develop an action plan for the application of a precautionary approach to salmon management. This action plan, which is specifically designed for the North Atlantic, foresees a number of measures which will be undertaken by the contracting parties to NASCO in the coming years in order to restore the North Atlantic wild salmon stocks. The action plan will comprehensively address the management of fisheries, socio-economic issues, unreported catches, stock rebuilding programmes, habitat issues and aquaculture. This action plan was drawn up with the full support and involvement of the Community at all stages. The Commission considers that this action will generate effective measures to halt the decline in the wild salmon stocks in the North Atlantic. (1999/C 182/045) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2992/98 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1998) Subject: Suspected fraud in connection with ECHO aid funds This week it was reported that the Luxembourg police are investigating alleged frauds in connection with the use of funds by the Commission’s unit responsible for disaster aid. At least ECU 500 000 have disappeared, in addition to which appropriations intended for projects on the ground were used, contrary to all the regulations, to cover administrative expenditure in Brussels. Alleged cases of misappropriation of funds have disastrous effects on national perceptions of the EU administration’s ability to control and monitor the use of taxpayers’ money. It is incredible that, in the course of the Commission’s internal monitoring of the use of funds, the misappropriation of amounts of this magnitude could have passed unnoticed and without intervention. Since the reports suggest that this was not an isolated incident, this may prove to have done really significant overall damage to the credibility of all the EU institutions. In the light of the above, what explanation can there be for misappropriations of this nature happening without being spotted by internal checks? What concrete measures does the Commission propose to take in future to improve the efficiency of its own internal supervision, not only in this individual case but generally, in order to prevent the misappropriation of funds and to improve its public image as a responsible user of taxpayers’ money?