You are on page 1of 2

C 28 E/132 Official Journal of the European Union EN 6.2.


(2003/C 28 E/152) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1758/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Statements made by the Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute during the 12th meeting
of fisheries research organisations in Baiona, Galicia, on 5 June this year

When the 12th meeting of fisheries research organisations was being held in Baiona, Galicia, on 5 June this
year, the Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute, Álvaro Fernández, said, in connection with the
European Commission’s proposal to reform the common fisheries policy, that it was pointless to propose
an across-the-board reduction in catches, as envisaged by the Commission when talking about cuts of
between 30 % and 60 %, but that the situation should be analysed for each fish stock in order to see what
reduction was needed for each species and in each fishing ground, whilst in any case taking measures
compatible with fishing activity. The Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute stressed that no fish
stocks in Community waters require a 40 % reduction and considered that any reduction of more than
20 % was excessive, since such a policy would be enough to allow recovery of stocks and fleet activity.

Has the Commission taken into account in its studies on the CFP reform scientific opinions such as those
expressed in Baiona by the Director of the Spanish Oceanographic Institute, a person of considerable

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

The Commission uses scientists’ recommendations as the basis for its proposals on conservation and
management of fish stocks. However, in doing so, the Commission takes into account, in particular, the
scientific advice provided officially by the relevant scientific bodies, namely the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
(STECF). These bodies represent the views of different scientists from across Europe, in a way which
ensures the highest possible degree of consensus among all the participating scientists.

Mr Álvaro Fernandez is a well known, highly respected scientist. The Commission, however, cannot use as
its scientific basis individual opinions by individual scientists, even less so those published in the media.

(2003/C 28 E/153) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1759/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Marína at Lefkada

A marina for leisure craft was recently inaugurated at Lefkada. The project was jointly funded by the
European Union.

What was the cost of building the marina? What amount did the EU contribute and what was the
contribution from the Greek Government, banks and private investors?

Which organisation carried out the work and what are the circumstances regarding ownership?

What were the general interest criteria on which the decision to approve joint Community funding was

Would the project also be economically viable without Community funding? Has a cost-benefit analysis
been carried out?
6.2.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 28 E/133

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Under the subsidiarity principle and in line with Structural Fund rules it is up to the Greek authorities to
select projects in line with the criteria set in the relevant operational programme adopted by the
Commission. Thus it is not the Community that approves financing of individual projects or monitors
their execution.

The project in question was selected by the Greek authorities for assistance under the Sustainable
expansion of tourism subprogramme of the Ionian Islands regional operational programme.

We have been informed by the national authorities that the marina is owned by the Greek State, which
made over operating rights to the Prefecture of Lefkada, which is the final recipient of the assistance
granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). By a contract signed at the end of 1999
the Prefecture assigned construction and operation of the marina for a 40-year period to the undertaking
Lefkada Marína SA.

Project execution is in two stages, the first involving work on the boat harbour itself costing
EUR 8 800 000 in total, 75 % part-financed from the ERDF (1994-1999 programming period). The second
covers completion of the harbour work plus work on landside facilities, the total cost being
EUR 19 800 000: EUR 6 200 000 of public and EUR 13 600 000 of private expenditure. The ERDF is
paying 75 % of the public expenditure under the Ionian Islands regional operational programme of the
2000-2006 Community support framework.

(2003/C 28 E/154) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1760/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Cattle import licences

The prospect of a change in the method of allocating licences for breeding calves for fattening has caused
intense speculation and great concern among Greek stock farmers.

Is there any such prospect and, if so, how does the Commission intend to safeguard the future of small
importers who have invested in recent years in modernising their operations but will be unable to compete
as the financial conditions intended to apply to imported cattle will favour only large-scale stock farmers in

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2002 of 27 June 2002 opening and providing for the adminis-
tration of an import tariff quota for young male bovine animals for fattening (1 July 2002 to 30 June
2003) (1) has established the detailed rules for the quota year 2002/2003 with regard to the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) import quota of live male animals for fattening.

The basic method of allocation of import rights has not been modified compared with the corresponding
Regulation of 2001 (2). This means that the Greek importers still have a guaranteed access to a specific part
of the quota with unchanged criteria of participation. However, the specific part reserved for Greek
importers was slightly reduced from 11,5 % (=19 500 animals) to 10,7 % (=18 100 animals) in line with
recent developments of import needs.