WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Industrial fishing.
C 203 E/8 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 (2000/C 203 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1564/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Commission recovery orders For years the Commission has been requesting reimbursement from recipients of Community funds who have not complied with the rules on the use of such funds. Can the Commission say how many recovery orders per project are pending and how long each recovery procedure has been going on? Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1999) In the revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet the Commission provides information about debt recovery in relation to ásundry debtsí, i. e. all debts other than own resources. An extract from the revenue and expenditure account (pages 38 to 43 of Volume I, Part 1) is being sent to the Honourable Member and Parliamentís Secretariat. As there are a great many debts outstanding, this information can only be taken as an overview, with a breakdown by major area of activity. Sundry debtsí comprise general debts and debts giving rise to a recovery procedure for failure to comply with the rules on the use of Community funds. As regards the second of these categories, a distinction needs to be made between debts arising out of direct Commission expenditure (managed directly by the Commission), where recovery is carried out by the Commissionís own departments, and debts arising out of other expenditure, where recovery is initiated by the Member States. With the present reporting system under Sincom2, there is no way of conducting an individual and ongoing analysis of progress on all the Commissionís projects and the debts associated with them. The Commission is able to trace the history of each debt and identify the debts associated with each particular project. The amount of research needed to answer the Honourable Memberís questions in detail, however, would be out of proportion to the result which they seek to achieve and would go beyond the limits of a reply to a written question. (2000/C 203 E/009) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1584/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Industrial fishing In view of the recent explosion in industrial fishing in the North Sea ü for example, Denmark increased its fishmeal production from 16 000 tonnes in 1986 to 320 000 tonnes in 1994 ü does not the Commission feel that, on environmental and ecological grounds, the quotas should be reduced? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1999) The Commission does not consider that there has been an outburst of industrial fisheries from 1986 to 1994. Figures submitted by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) indicate a rather stable fishery, only subject to natural fluctuations in the availability of target stocks. 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/9 industrial fisheries by Community vessels in the Since the inception of the common fisheries policy, Northeast Atlantic have always been subject to management rules. These rules include nowadays limitation of catches by TACs (total allowable catches), covering all species targeted for industrial purposes. TACs are fixed annually by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission which is based on the most recent and relevant scientific advice. Scientific advice takes into account environmental and ecological aspects. Whenever scientific evidence will suggest that TACs should be reduced in order to ensure that fishing activities are carried out at a sustainable level, the Commission will certainly issue a proposal for a Council regulation to adapt TACs and quotas accordingly. The Commission will also evaluate in parallel the need to propose further management measures as appropriate. (2000/C 203 E/010) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Failure by Greece to give notification of waste management programmes The Commission has decided to initiate proceedings before the European Court against Greece for failure to give notification of waste management programmes in accordance with Directives 75/442 (1), 91/689 (2) and 94/62 (3). Greece has now provided information concerning waste management within its territory. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. Does it know the reasons for the delay by Greece in announcing its programmes? 2. What view does it take of the information provided by Greece? 3. Is Greece complying with the provisions of the above directives and, if not, in which areas is it out of line? (1) OJ L 194, 25. 7. 1975, p. 39. (2) OJ L 377, 31. 12. 1991, p. 20. (3) OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994, p. 10. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (25 October 1999) Having noted that Greece had not reported waste management programmes, in infringement of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on dangerous wastes, and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Greece. As part of those proceedings the Greek authorities notified the Commission of a draft plan in December 1998. During a bilateral meeting in May 1999 the Commission commented to the Greek authorities on the gaps in the draft waste management plan. In the absence of any reaction from the Greek authorities the Commission decided to lay the matter before the Court of Justice on 1 July 1999. On 31 August 1999 the Greek authorities passed on their comments concerning those made by the Commission on the draft waste management plan without, however, amending that draft. The Commission has not been given any specific reasons for the delay in drawing up the waste management plans in Greece. The Commission is anxious to point out that infringement proceedings are also in progress against 12 other Member States as a result of a delay in sending waste management plans