WRITTEN QUESTION P-2042/00 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU-Greenland fisheries agreement.
Date: 2000-06-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greenland, Portugal, agreement (EU), catch quota, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing regulations, fishing rights

C 113 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

In February this year the installation and operation of purification plants for waste from Las Pedan(cid:237)as de
Baæos y Mendigo, La Murta, Lobosillo, La Tercia, Gea y Truyols y Cabezo de la Plata was approved, with
funding from the ERDF, in order to remove part of this major problem, but such measures have proved
inadequate in the past.

Does the Commission not believe that it should demand, as a matter of urgency, that the local authorities
concerned find immediate, all-embracing solutions which meet European Union stipulations regarding the
right of citizens to a healthy environment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

In its Communication setting out the guidelines for Structural Fund programmes in the period 2000-
2006 (1),
including the collection,
treatment and discharge of urban waste water. Special attention is paid to the location of discharge points
and the impact of discharges on the environment.

the Commission stresses the importance of water management,

The Commission is currently in the final stages of its negotiations with the Spanish authorities on the new
Community Support Framework for Objective 1 regions in Spain. It will carefully examine the authorities(cid:146)
proposals for all Spanish regions,
in the light of the priorities indicated in these
guidelines.

including Murcia,

From the information supplied so far, it has not been possible to establish whether Council Directive 76/
464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged to the aquatic environment of
the Community (2) and the relevant Directives (3) apply in this case. In principle, discharges of List I
substances have to be authorised and relevant List II substances have to be identified by the national
authorities. For relevant List II substances, the Member States are required to draw up pollution reduction
programmes, including the setting of quality objectives for rivers.

(1) OJ C 267, 22.9.1999.
(2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.
(3) Directive 82/176/EEC, OJ L 81, 27.3.1982.Directive 83/513/EEC, OJ L 291, 24.10.1983. Directive 84/156/EEC,
OJ L 74, 17.3.1984. Directive 84/491/EEC, OJ L 274, 17.10.1984. Directive 86/280/EEC, OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.

(2001/C 113 E/054)

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(cid:146)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(cid:146)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.

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/59

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:

(cid:129) state whether it intends to propose that the Portuguese fleet should have access to Greenland(cid:146)s waters,
a measure which would presuppose the revision of the distribution of quotas between Member States,
taking account of Portugal(cid:146)s historic rights in those waters and of the practical application of the
flexibility principle;

(cid:129) provide information as to whether the Portuguese government has submitted a formal request to

access to a fisheries quota under this agreement;

(cid:129) state when it intends to submit a proposal for consideration by the Council?

(2001/C 113 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2044/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Negotiation of the EU-Greenland fisheries agreement

(16 June 2000)

The Portuguese deep-sea fishing fleet has suffered substantial cuts since the early 1990s: of the 52 factory
vessels which made up the fleet in 1990, only 14 remain today. This is essentially the result of the absence
of the quotas which should have been applied to ensure the profitability of this section of the fleet, with all
that that involves for job creation, supplies to the processing industry and the fisheries-dependent regions.
Today Portugal imports approximately PTE 150 billion(cid:146)s worth of fish. Since the minimum quota to ensure
the profitability of a factory vessel is approximately 2 000 tonnes of fish per annum, and given that
Portugal has a quota of 16 000 tonnes (NAFO, Irminger Sea, Norway and Svalbard), it may be concluded
that a deficit of 12 000 tonnes has to be made good if the existing fleet is to be rendered viable.

Portuguese fleets have fished in Greenland(cid:146)s waters since the 1930s. However, following accession to the
EU the situation was altered by the EU-Greenland fisheries agreement signed in 1985. This agreement,
which is the second most costly of all, provides for catch possibilities of up to 140 000 tonnes, of which
112 000 (or 80 %) are allocated to Germany, with the remainder distributed between the UK, Denmark and
France. This appears particularly unsatisfactory considering that Germany does not have the capacity to
utilise its quota and its take-up rate under the agreement is in the region of 12 %. This state of affairs
allows Greenland to resell the unused quota to third countries.

In view of the process for the renegotiation of this agreement, which is due to finish at the end of 2000,
and the various decisions of the Fisheries Council since 30 October 1997 concerning the introduction of
provisions to permit the transfer of catch possibilities from one Member State to another in case of under-
use, will the Commission give consideration to altering the distribution of catch possibilities under this
agreement with a view to ensuring full take-up of the quotas and improving the cost-efficiency ratio? In
the case of the Portuguese fleet, will the Commission give consideration to guaranteeing Portugal a quota
which would ensure the survival of its deep-sea fishery? Can the Commission state what the present state
of progress is on the negotiations?

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.