WRITTEN QUESTION E-1505/99 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Situation of the fishing fleet in the NAFO area in the context of bilateral relations between the European Union and Canada.
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canada, EU action, bilateral relations, fisheries policy, fishing area, fishing fleet, international dispute

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/25

(2000/C 170 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1503/99

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Situation of the fishing fleet belonging to EC-Argentinean joint enterprises

Before the fisheries agreement between the EU and Argentina expired, the Argentinean Government
thereby
unilaterally adopted a series of measures which blatantly discriminate against
infringing and contradicting the provisions of the agreement. They concern the allocation and reduction
of fishing quotas, the establishment of marketing areas applicable to the freezer fleet only, a reduction in
the number of Community crew members, restrictions making it difficult for Community workers to
obtain visas, etc. This situation prompted Community ship-owners (cid:129) mainly in Galicia (cid:129) to lodge a
complaint with the European Court of Justice against the European Commission, on the grounds that the
Commission had failed to offer the fleet adequate legal protection,
in that the EU institutions were
powerless against the measures adopted unilaterally by the Argentinean Government.

the EU fleet,

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to safeguard the interests of EU-Argentinean joint
enterprises in Argentinean waters? By what date does it envisage adopting them? Why has the EU hitherto
never made any efforts to this end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1999)

In the last few years, catches of Merluza hubbsi in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Argentina have
risen substantially, threatening the conservation of this stock. Faced with this situation, the Argentinian
Government declared an (cid:145)emergencia pesquera(cid:146) and adopted a series of management and conservation
measures.

Some of these measures have had an impact on the activity of vessels operating under the fisheries
agreement between the Community and Argentina. Their adoption without consulting the Community has
led the Community to consider that they affect the general balance of the agreement.

The Commission has several times made its position clear to the Argentinian side, in particular with regard
to the difference in treatment between freezer ships and vessels taking fresh fish. Payment of the balance of
money for scientific and technical assistance under the fisheries agreement between the Community and
Argentina has been blocked.

Despite the fact that this agreement and the rights and obligations arising out of it for the contracting
parties expired on 24 May 1999, and that both the joint enterprises and vessels transferred under the
agreement are entities in Argentinian law, the Commission is maintaining regular contact with the
Argentine authorities and is following developments closely.

(2000/C 170 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1505/99

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Situation of the fishing fleet in the NAFO area in the context of bilateral relations between the

European Union and Canada

The Community fishing fleet, which operates in international waters under multilateral NAFO control, has
seen its ships considerably reduced in numbers over the last few years and the allowable catches have also
been reduced. EU and Canadian delegations met recently in Cologne to sign a commercial and economic
cooperation agreement, which will not cover fishery relations. There are therefore no guarantees that
Canada will repeal Law C-27 which authorises the country to fish outside the 200-mile exclusive economic

C 170 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

zone and is contrary to international law. Some time ago this situation led to the seizure of the Galician
vessel Estai and a dispute which has still not been settled in law.

In view of all this, can the Commission say why it refuses to settle the ongoing fisheries dispute? What
steps has the EU devised to safeguard Community fishing interests (cid:129) which affect Galicia in particular (cid:129)
in the NAFO area, in view of the authorised increase in fishing activity and the repeal of Law C-27?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 1999)

It should be recalled that the dispute, which arose within the Northwest Atlantic fisheries organisation
(NAFO) on the sharing of the Greenland halibut stock and which culminated in Canada(cid:146)s arrest of the
Spanish trawler (cid:145)Estai(cid:146) in international waters in March 1995, was settled by both the conclusion of the
(cid:145)Agreement constituted in the form of an agreed minute, an exchange of letters, an exchange of notes and
the Annexes thereto between the European Community and Canada on fisheries in the context of the
NAFO Convention(cid:146) of 20 April 1995 (1) and, as intended, the subsequent adoption ((cid:145)multilateralisation(cid:146)) by
NAFO of the agreed package of measures at the 17th annual meeting of NAFO which was held from 11 to
15 September 1995. Under the terms of this settlement, Canada removed Spain and Portugal from the list
of states against which the Canadian fisheries legislation of 1994 (so-called Bill C-29) could be applied.

It should also be noted that, in recent dealings about the new legislation enabling Canada to implement the
1995 United Nations (UN) Agreement on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (so-called
Bill C-27), Canada restated in writing that (cid:145)further to the 1995 Canada/EU Agreed Minute, Canada took
Spain and Portugal off the list of States against which the provisions of Bill C-29 could be applied; those
two countries are still off that list and the adoption of Bill C-27 does not change anything in that respect(cid:146).

The Commission believes that firmness on principles offers the best prospects for the avoidance of a
repetition of the events of 1995. In line with this, the Commission has consistently taken exception to
extra-territorial aspects of Canadian fisheries legislation. Furthermore, it has emphasised and continues to
emphasise the importance of the rule of law in international fisheries relations, the priority of international
law (i.e. the NAFO Convention and customary international law in the present instance) over pieces of
domestic legislation and the need for appropriate procedures for the peaceful settlement of international
disputes. In the latter context, the Commission has insisted on a continuation and acceleration of work on
a specific dispute settlement mechanism in the framework of NAFO. At this year(cid:146)s annual meeting of
NAFO, which was held from 13 to 17 September 1999, and against initial resistance from Canada, this
motion remained successful.

(1) Council Decision 95/0586/EC of 22 December 1995, OJ L 327, 30.12.1995.

(2000/C 170 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/99

by Wolfgang Kreissl-D(cid:246)rfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Promoting the (cid:145)K(cid:246)nigsbr(cid:252)cker Heide(cid:146) and (cid:145)Am Spitzberg(cid:146) nature conservation areas (in Saxony,

Germany) in the context of the Community(cid:146)s Konver initiative

As part of the Konver initiative the Community has given financial aid to the (cid:145)K(cid:246)nigsbr(cid:252)cker Heide(cid:146) and
(cid:145)Am Spitzberg(cid:146) nature conservation areas in Saxony.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is the amount of subsidies and loans, what are they for and what specific measures have they

been used to support?