WRITTEN QUESTION E-2153/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject: Fisheries public concern over announced incursion of Spanish fisheries into Portuguese coastal waters

The following comments, by a well-known journalist, recently appeared in a major Portuguese newspaper: In the fisheries sector, we have always benefited from the special regime arising from the bilaterally

negotiated pre-accession agreement, and, believing that our resources would always belong to us, we have encouraged containment of the fishing effort in our waters, with a view to stock conservation. We have scrapped vessels, put fishermen out of work, outlawed fishing with driftnets for certain species and imposed catch limits for others. And now, quite out of the blue, we find ourselves in a defenceless position. What this means in practice is that we have been conserving our stocks only to allow the Spanish to step in and decimate them in half-a-dozen years, with a fishing fleet which is the world's third or fourth biggest and which, having exhausted the national stocks, is now bent on fishing dry every sea where it is allowed to operate. To talk of the principle of equality in such conditions is to make a mockery of us. To surrender the coastal waters of mainland Portugal, the Azores and Madeira and turn the other cheek to the pillaging Spanish fleet is to give up any idea that we can seek our own advantage within the EU. Finally, to allow Brussels to impose a so-called policy of equality in the fisheries sector, while blocking all avenues of reform for the blatant inequalities of the CAP, with its bias in favour of richer Member States and against poorer ones, is to condemn ourselves once and for all to the fringes of Europe (Miguel Sousa Tavares, Público, 13 June 2003).

Another journalist writes as follows: The EU is allowing Spain to run a huge, aggressive and pillaging fishing fleet, thanks to which Morocco was forced to restrict access to its waters for EU fishing vessels while conflicts are now arising in the Irish Sea. Meanwhile, the EU has obliged Portugal to reduce its own fleet so as to allow the restructuring in fish-breeding terms of the Portuguese EEZ. It is time for the EU to ensue that justice is gone and to copy the Canadian strategy [fear is the best taskmaster], introducing fines on vessels found in breach of the rules a measure for which occasional spot checks should suffice (Commander Virgílio de Carvalho, Jornal de Notícias, 16 June 2003).

While the Portuguese legal position on the matter may not yet have been fully defined, it remains the case that the issue was recently examined by the European Parliament and that the above positions are representative of public opinion in Portugal regarding the new fisheries regime in the Western waters and the EU's proclaimed intention to open up those waters, within the 200-mile limit, bringing in a free-for-all regime which will notably benefit the powerful Spanish fleet, with enormous risks for both stock conservation and the very survival of the Portuguese fishery.

What is the Commission's position on the above-quoted newspaper articles? What is its position concerning the increasing feeling in Portugal that the EU is subjecting the country's primary sector. especially agriculture and fisheries, to unfair treatment? Can the Commission explain why Portugal, having adapted and reduced its fishing effort in a disciplined fashion (with severe economic and social consequences), in order to preserve fish stocks in the adjacent waters, now has to see those waters openly pillaged by third parties? Can the Commission explain the existence of this double standard which forces some to conserve while others pillage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

It should be recalled that according to Article 17(1) of the framework Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy(1), a fundamental principle of this policy is that Community fishing vessels have equal access to waters beyond 12 nautical miles off the baselines.

As a consequence of the 1985 Act of Accession for Spain and Portugal, ICES(2) area IXa was divided between these two Member States according to their national boundaries. This was, however, clearly a transitional arrangement, alongside other temporary arrangements for the integration of Portugal and Spain into the Community, which now must come to an end. The separation between Spanish and Portuguese waters beyond 12 nautical miles is clearly not in line with Article 17(1) referred to earlier and it simply cannot be permanently upheld within the Community to exclude access to waters under one Member State's jurisdiction for other Member States, neither legally nor politically. This is valid for all Community waters, not only Portuguese waters. It should also be recalled that this approach has already been accepted in the total allowable catches (TAC) and Quota Regulation for 2003, adopted by the Council in December 2002, in which the corresponding separation of ICES area IXa was abolished.

If there are conservation problems appearing in the area in question, they should be regulated at Community level according to the ordinary procedures which are applied within the Common Fisheries Policy. The Commission is always prepared to examine such claims and to take the necessary action.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2) ICES: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.