WRITTEN QUESTION P-2042/00

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: EU-Greenland fisheries agreement

Despite having fished cod and redfish in Greenland's waters since the 1930s, Portugal was no longer allowed to fish in those waters after it joined the EU in 1986: the Union had concluded a fisheries agreement with Greenland the previous year, and the terms of this agreement were not altered to take account of Portugal's requirements.

Under this agreement, 130 000 tonnes are attributed to the EU in return for a payment from the Community budget of approximately PTE 8 billion each year.

However, of this total 120 000 tonnes are allocated to a single Member State, Germany, which does not have the capacity for full take-up. Consequently, the average take-up rate for the fisheries agreement with Greenland has been 12 %, notwithstanding its very substantial costs to the Community coffers.

This state of affairs needs to be juxtaposed to the unfair treatment of Portugal, in the context of the conclusions of the Fisheries Council of 30 October 1997 concerning flexibility arrangements in the implementation of fisheries agreements and, in particular, the possibility of temporarily transferring unused quotas from one Member State to another that has the real capacity to take them up.

Given that the current fisheries agreement will expire at the end of this year and that the intention exists to renew it, can the Commission:

- state whether it intends to propose that the Portuguese fleet should have access to Greenland's waters, a measure which would presuppose the revision of the distribution of quotas between Member States, taking account of Portugal's historic rights in those waters and of the practical application of the flexibility principle;

- provide information as to whether the Portuguese government has submitted a formal request to access to a fisheries quota under this agreement;

- state when it intends to submit a proposal for consideration by the Council?

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2042/00 and P-2044/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The internal distribution amongst Member States of fishing possibilities under a fisheries agreement is not the subject of negotiations with the third country but an internal matter to be resolved within the Community.

In general terms, the Commission is of the opinion that available catch quotas in third country waters under a fisheries agreement must be utilised in a rational and optimal manner and that appropriate mechanisms making transfers of unused or under-utilised catch quotas to other interested Member States should be designed without prejudice to the principle of relative stability.

The Court of Justice ruled, in its judgement given on 13 October 1992(1) that, under the principle of relative stability, under-utilisation alone offers no valid motive for a re-allocation of the catch quotas concerned to other interested Member States. Furthermore, the Court declared that, by accepting the acquis communautaire pursuant to the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession, Portugal was barred from invoking earlier traditions of fishing in Greenland waters as a motive to obtain a re-distribution of catch quotas allocated in accordance with the principle of relative stability.

The Commission is aware of a continued wish by the Portuguese administration to bring about a re-distribution of catch quotas in Greenland waters. However, no formal request has been received in the recent past.

As the 1985 Community-Greenland fisheries agreement will not expire, forthcoming negotiations will concentrate on a fourth fisheries protocol covering the years 2001-2006. The Commission expects to submit within the next few weeks a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a fourth fisheries protocol. The Commission will, in due course, following the conclusion of these negotiations submit a proposal to the Council for the approval of the intended fourth protocol.

(1) Case C-63/90, Portugal v. Council.