WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Fisheries aspects of the EU-Chile association agreement

On 26 April 2002 the Commission and the Government of Chile signed an Association Agreement, which will be presented in Madrid on 17 May and will be submitted for ratification by the national parliaments and the European Parliament. This agreement provides for the creation of a free-trade area, a political dialogue and wide-ranging cooperation.

The agreement has been criticised by the EC fisheries sector, and it appears to have been framed in the context of a misunderstanding of globalisation: the Commission has given in to the demands of third countries, opening up the Community market

while failing to defend our fleet's interests. It has not asked for access to Chilean resources or an unloading facility in Chilean ports. As of January, only four Community vessels are permitted to unload in three Chilean ports; the remainder have to do so in Peru, thus facing higher costs and greater distances. It therefore seems impossible to justify the Commission's decision to temporarily suspend the proceedings taken out by the Community against Chile in the WTO and at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea even more so as it is Chile's intention, in contravention of the Convention on the Law of Sea, to extend its Exclusive Economic Zone and related legislation beyond the 200-mile limit.

Another aspect criticised in EC fishing milieux is that concerning rules of origin: the Commission has agreed that fish caught by the Community fleet should be considered products of Chilean origin. This is a step backwards and represents a negative precedent for future negotiations with other countries.

On what grounds can the Commission justify this failure to defend the Community's interests, in an area such as rules of origin, in the Association Agreement signed with Chile?

What guarantees can the Commission extend to the Community fleet to ensure that it is enabled to unload freely in Chilean ports, thus ending the present situation? Should the problems and restrictions continue, will the Commission support taking out fresh proceedings with the WTO and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's view that the Commission has given in to the demands of Chile while failing to defend European interests. The Commission wishes to point out that the Association Agreement is not a fishing agreement on access to the fishing resources of the parties, nor is it the framework for such an agreement. This type of licenses is normally subject to independent negotiations and it would be placed in the framework of specific negotiating directives.

However, during the negotiations, the Commission made Chile the offer of a substantially improved commercial arrangement in exchange for access to Chilean fishing resources. This offer was completely rejected by Chile, which denies any access to its fishing resources to ships that do not fly the Chilean flag. However, an increase in opportunities to invest Community capital in the Chilean fisheries sector was obtained. In this way, Community fishing companies will be allowed to own up to 100 % of Chilean fishing companies, under the same conditions as Chilean investors, with only one condition: that the legislation applicable in the European country where the capital invested in Chile comes from, also allows for majority investment of Chilean capital in that European country.

As it was not possible to obtain direct access to the fishing-grounds of Chile for the Community fishing fleet, but only an improvement in the possibilities of indirect access, via investments, the commercial concessions by the Community do not include more than 91 % of its imports (in value) of fishing products originating in Chile.

Another aspect mentioned in the question are the rules of origin for fishing products. According to the terms of the agreement reached, the same principle that governs all the preferential regimes of the Community has also been adopted in the case of Chile: the origin of the catches is determined by the ship and not by the catch area. So, the catches made by the Community fleet will be of Community origin and not of Chilean origin. Therefore, the provisions included in the Association Agreement do not constitute a step backward or a negative precedent.

The Honourable Member is correct in that access to Chilean ports is limited to four Community vessels, under a joint fisheries research programme. This was only one component of a package agreed in the context of a bilateral Arrangement of January 2001 which resulted in the temporary suspension of the proceedings launched by the Community and Chile in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), respectively. However, if the Commission is of the view that the bilateral Arrangement of 2001 is not being respected by Chile it has the right to call for the re-activation of the suspended WTO proceedings.

A further element of the bilateral Arrangement, is that multilateral co-operation on swordfish in the South-East Pacific should be advanced. Recently, the Community and Chile jointly launched an International Consultation process with the view of establishing multilateral co-operation in the South-East Pacific regarding the conservation and management of the swordfish stocks in that region. The Community believes that any future Arrangement established on this basis should cover the complete range of the stocks, both inside and outside the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the coastal states concerned. Any conservation measures adopted in this framework would be decided on a multilateral basis in accordance with the Law of the Sea.