WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/01

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

(8 March 2001)

Subject: The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience

One of the most pressing problems with which the open-sea fishery is currently faced concerns how to oblige countries which are not party to international fisheries organisations and whose fleets fish in waters not subject to the jurisdiction of coastal states to accept the regional fisheries organisations' measures for the rational management and conservation of stocks. The still relatively undeveloped state of the international law of the sea means that vessels flying a flag of convenience, or even no flag at all, can fish in international waters in an irresponsible fashion, heedless of fish stocks or the marine environment, thus undermining the rational fish stock management schemes and measures for responsible fishing agreed by such regional organisations as NAFO, NEAFC or ICCAT. In its present state the law of the sea tends to prioritise member states' sovereign rights and has given little encouragement to the right of intervention. The contracting parties to the international organisations are therefore taking an approach involving coercive measures based on indirect forms of pressure on vessels which do not comply with the organisations' rules on stock management. Such measures are generally aimed at creating obstacles to the marketing of those vessels' catches, and can include, for instance, transfer bans or bans on unloading in the contracting parties' ports.

Can the Commission provide information on the data which it possesses on infringements of this nature (nationality of the infringing vessels, number of vessels, areas of operation, ports used for unloading, etc)? Can it also state whether it is carrying out or intends to carry out a detailed study of these problems?

What solutions to these problems does the Commission propose as things stand?

What action can be taken to prevent fish illegally caught under flags of convenience from entering the EU market?

Is the Commission considering applying solutions proposed by it in the past for similar types of problem, such as the transport of polluting goods by sea using flags of convenience?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of the problem which flags of convenience pose in relation to sustainable, responsible fishing.

In the Commission's view, however, international law and Regional Fisheries Organisations constitute the appropriate framework for regulating fisheries activity. The Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas (approved by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in November 1993) would therefore be

the most effective instrument for obtaining the requisite data on vessels. Ratification of the New York Agreement relating to the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (adopted in August 1995 and signed in December 1995 at the United Nations) would also help to regulate activity on the high seas and would require greater international cooperation by non-member countries and countries not party to Regional Fisheries Organisations. Accordingly, the Commission would above all like to see both Agreements ratified as soon as possible so that they can be applied.

With regard to the Honourable Member's question about infringements, by means of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2740/1999 of 21 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the common fisheries policy(1) the Commission will obtain for the first time the requisite information, which Member States will notify to it. The Commission will then present to the Council, the European Parliament and in the Advisory Committee on Fisheries a general overview by Member State of the information received. As regards non-Community vessels, there is a compliance committee at most Regional Fisheries Organisations (e.g. at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) and the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)).

All the relevant Community rules, and particularly Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(2), are intended to reinforce monitoring of fisheries activity from when fish are caught to when they are sold. The Commission and the Member States have played an active role in the international action plan against unlawful, unregulated and undeclared fishing; the plan provides for various ways of stamping out unlawful fishing such as each state monitoring its nationals, monitoring and surveillance of fisheries activity from outset to landing, and application of international market measures. The plan stresses above all the responsibility of the flag state, as well as that of the port state and the importing state.

With regard to unlawful fishing's access to the Community market, as stated the international action plan approved recourse to international and multilateral measures to stamp out trade in unlawfully obtained fish and fisheries products by encouraging the application of penalties. The Regional Fisheries Organisations have demonstrated that it is possible to ban unlawful fish imports to the European market (e.g. the bluefin tuna case at the ICCAT) and to monitor catches by means of catch certificates (e.g. at the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Maríne Living Resources (CCAMLR), the IATTC and the ICCAT).

The Commission took part in the joint FAO/International Maritime Organisation (IMO) working party on vessel monitoring by flag states. In fact the international action plan calls for a closer working relationship between the FAO and the IMO, inter alia with a view to defining the substantive link between the fishing vessel and the state (Article 91 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea).

(1) OJ L 328, 22.12.1999.

(2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.