WRITTEN QUESTION E-3446/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and cooperation aid.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Greenland, agreement (EU), financial control, financial equalisation, fishing agreement, protocol to an agreement

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/119

catch possibilities offered by Greenland and the other part intended for development cooperation. The
Council(cid:146)s negotiating mandate established the need to differentiate these two headings, since it
is
considered that the financial compensation is overestimated in respect of the real catch possibilities
offered; this differentiation is included in a joint statement of conclusions but is not referred to in the
agreement text as such, as should have been called for under the Council mandate.

is not compatible with the guidelines of

In view of the above, can the Commission explain the reasons which have led it to sign a protocol whose
text
the other agreements
and protocols signed differentiate clearly between financial compensation for catch possibilities and the
(duly broken down) sums paid under such headings as cooperation?

the mandate, given also that

(2001/C 163 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3444/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and increase in financial compensation

Article 11 of the fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland, signed by the Commission on 13 September
2000, establishes a financial compensation to be paid by the Community to the sum of € 42 820 000, that
is, € 5 120 000 more than under the previous protocol. As has been clearly recognised by the Council, the
the real catch
financial compensation for Greenland is considerably overestimated in the light of
possibilities offered. The text of
the financial
compensation.

includes no other heading set against

the protocol

In view of the above, can the Commission explain the basis for this increase in the financial compensation
payable to Greenland by € 5 120 000?

(2001/C 163 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3445/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and catch figures for the Community fleet

Following the signature on 13 September 2000 of the fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland, can the
Commission provide catch figures in respect of the Community fleet under the fisheries agreement with
Greenland for the period since 1995, broken down by year, species caught and Member State?

(2001/C 163 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3446/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and cooperation aid

in the joint statement of conclusions subscribed to by Greenland and the Commission following the
signature on 13 September 2000 of the fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland, it is stated that of the
the amount of
total sum of € 42 820 000 payable by the Community in financial compensation,
€ 14 820 000 corresponds to cooperation aid for Greenland.

Can the Commission explain how it has come about that the text of this protocol contains not a single
mention of the purposes for which this sum of € 14 820 000 is intended, nor any indication of how
Greenland is to prove the proper use of Community funds to the EU?

C 163 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Can the Commission explain why, in the context of the recognised need for controls and transparency in
respect of Community funds, clauses of that nature are invariably included in the agreements signed with
ACP countries (recalling that the Commission is now increasingly toughening those requirements in the
case of specific agreements, as exemplified by the case of Angola, where those same requirements have led
to a delay of almost two months in implementing the new protocol, with obvious adverse effects for the
Community fleet affected), while at the same time it is considered that Greenland can have free rein to
spend this quite considerable amount of Community funding unmonitored?

(2001/C 163 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and participation of vessel owners in its financing

Despite the fact that in all of the (cid:145)southern(cid:146) fisheries agreements the Commission has progressively
increased the financial participation of vessel owners in the costs of agreements, to a level currently
varying between 17 % and 25 % of the total cost, it now appears that once again, in the new fisheries
protocol signed with Greenland, vessel owners benefiting on an exclusive basis from the protocol are asked
to pay nothing at all.

In view of this, can the Commission explain its reasons for consenting once again to a situation of
discrimination of this nature as between vessel owners from the northern and southern Member States?

Is the Commission aware that it is encouraging a climate of opinion in which it can be said quite openly
that the Commission is dividing the Community(cid:146)s vessel owners into first-class and second-class categories,
thus giving certain fleets the sensation of being abandoned and producing a total credibility breakdown as
regards the Commission(cid:146)s fisheries policies?

What, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, is the meaning of the comments in the joint statement of conclusions to
the effect that Greenland is not willing to contemplate any new system in this connection?

It may be presumed that if a third country receives the financial compensation which it considers desirable
it is not for that country to discuss the internal distribution of that compensation to be made by the EU. It
follows that if, in the (cid:145)southern(cid:146) agreements, vessel owners are obliged to bear part of the financial burden
it is because the Commission has preferred that option. Can the Commission explain why this should be
so in some cases and not others?

(2001/C 163 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3448/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Fourth fisheries protocol with Greenland and monitoring of fisheries activities

The second paragraph of Article 10 of the new fisheries protocol signed with Greenland states that, on the
the
matter of monitoring,
monitoring systems, in accordance with the capacity of each party.

the parties shall cooperate to facilitate the effective implementation of

Can the Commission state what is meant by this reference to the capacity of each party?

Is a possible interpretation that the EU should take on part of the monitoring responsibility in Greenland(cid:146)s
EEZ waters? If so, on what basis?

Could this mean that, for example, a Member State which is totally excluded from catch possibilities under
this agreement could be obliged to contribute by sending (cid:129) and paying for (cid:129) monitoring vessels?