WRITTEN QUESTION E-0019/01

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

(17 January 2001)

Subject: International fisheries agreements

The different ways in which the Commission manages international fisheries agreements in the North and South is creating grievances among EU shipowners operating in both these areas. Surprise has been expressed, for example, at the lenient approach taken by the Commission to the behaviour of countries of the North, which have refused to provide the identification and information required under the terms of the financial compensation for matters relating to cooperation and to introduce the payment of fisheries fees by shipowners.

Also surprising is the keenness with which the Commission is concluding international fisheries agreements in the North, while accepting whatever approach is adopted by the third country concerned, even though this might undermine Community cohesion in the field of international fisheries agreements. The Commission has continued to withhold the negotiating mandate with Kiribati for several months, although there is no justification for its delay in submitting the mandate to the Council.

Will the Commission explain the reasons for its behaviour?

Will it also say why it has suspended the fisheries agreement with Cape Verde and what it has done to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Concerning the general statements by the Honourable Member on the differences between northern and southern agreements that accompany the questions, the Commission wishes to point out the totally dissimilar contexts and specificity of these two types of agreements as well as their diverse historical origin.

As regards the negotiation of tuna fisheries agreements in Central West Pacific, in which Kiribati should be included, the Commission is aware of the interest of the European tuna fishing industry in developing new fishing possibilities in this part of the world. The Commission has already launched the required internal procedures for the preparation of a draft negotiating mandate. The Commission's proposal for a negotiating mandate should be submitted to the Council within the first trimester of 2001.

With regard to Cape Verde, aware of the importance of carrying out the renewal of the Protocol before its expiry, the Commission, after a series of preliminary contacts, took part in three negotiation rounds, which took place successively in Brussels on 19 and 20 July 2000, in Praia from 23 to 25 August 2000 and in Brussels on 6 and 7 November 2000.

Despite significant achievements during the negotiations, in particular concerning the level of fishing possibilities and of the corresponding financial contribution, the protocol could not be finalised. The Commission, on the advice of the interested Member States, was not in a position to accept Cape Verde's demands to insert an obligation for the surface long liners to unload 100 % of their catches in the port of Mindelo. It is also to be noted that Cape Verde is not on the list of countries allowed to export fish and fish products to the Community.

The Commission is making every effort to conclude this protocol as soon as possible. Although Cape Verde has not been yet in a position to suggest a new date for negotiations (parliamentary elections took place in Cape Verde on 14 January 2001 and presidential elections are scheduled to take place in February 2001), very recently its Ambassador in Brussels has communicated to the Commission the attachment of his government to a rapid resumption of the of the negotiating process.