WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience.
Date: 2001-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, economic sanctions, fishing controls, fishing regulations, flag of convenience, fraud, international economic law, law of the sea, maritime surveillance, marketing, world organisation

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/175

applied as soon as possible by means of national action plans and regional and international measures. The
Members of FAO are required to submit their measures to the next session of the Committee on Fisheries,
in February 2003.

Between now and 2003, the Community will continue to act within the regional fishery organisations
where there also is a clear will to cooperate to eliminate illegal fishing. The Action Plan also encourages
greater cooperation between the various regional fishery organisations, both with regard to the exchange
of information on vessels which commit offences and as regards the adoption of monitoring, control and
surveillance measures designed to eliminate illegal fishing.

(2001/C 261 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Subject: The common fisheries policy and illegal fishing: flags of convenience

One of the most pressing problems with which the open-sea fishery is currently faced concerns how to
oblige countries which are not party to international fisheries organisations and whose fleets fish in waters
not subject to the jurisdiction of coastal states to accept the regional fisheries organisations(cid:146) measures for
the rational management and conservation of stocks. The still relatively undeveloped state of
the
international law of the sea means that vessels flying a flag of convenience, or even no flag at all, can
fish in international waters in an irresponsible fashion, heedless of fish stocks or the marine environment,
thus undermining the rational fish stock management schemes and measures for responsible fishing agreed
by such regional organisations as NAFO, NEAFC or ICCAT. In its present state the law of the sea tends to
prioritise member states(cid:146) sovereign rights and has given little encouragement to the right of intervention.
The contracting parties to the international organisations are therefore taking an approach involving
coercive measures based on indirect
forms of pressure on vessels which do not comply with the
organisations(cid:146) rules on stock management. Such measures are generally aimed at creating obstacles to the
marketing of those vessels(cid:146) catches, and can include, for instance, transfer bans or bans on unloading in the
contracting parties(cid:146) ports.

Can the Commission provide information on the data which it possesses on infringements of this nature
(nationality of the infringing vessels, number of vessels, areas of operation, ports used for unloading, etc)?
Can it also state whether it is carrying out or intends to carry out a detailed study of these problems?

What solutions to these problems does the Commission propose as things stand?

What action can be taken to prevent fish illegally caught under flags of convenience from entering the EU
market?

Is the Commission considering applying solutions proposed by it in the past for similar types of problem,
such as the transport of polluting goods by sea using flags of convenience?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

The Commission is aware of the problem which flags of convenience pose in relation to sustainable,
responsible fishing.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, however, international law and Regional Fisheries Organisations constitute the
appropriate framework for regulating fisheries activity. The Agreement to promote compliance with
international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas (approved by
the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in November 1993) would therefore be the most effective

C 261 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

instrument for obtaining the requisite data on vessels. Ratification of the New York Agreement relating to
the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (adopted in August
1995 and signed in December 1995 at the United Nations) would also help to regulate activity on the high
seas and would require greater international cooperation by non-member countries and countries not party
to Regional Fisheries Organisations. Accordingly, the Commission would above all
like to see both
Agreements ratified as soon as possible so that they can be applied.

With regard to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question about
infringements, by means of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2740/1999 of 21 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1447/1999 establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriously infringe
the rules of the common fisheries policy (1) the Commission will obtain for the first time the requisite
information, which Member States will notify to it. The Commission will then present to the Council, the
European Parliament and in the Advisory Committee on Fisheries a general overview by Member State of
the information received. As regards non-Community vessels, there is a compliance committee at most
Regional Fisheries Organisations (e.g. at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas (ICCAT), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organisation (NAFO) and the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)).

All the relevant Community rules, and particularly Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October
1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2), are intended to reinforce
monitoring of fisheries activity from when fish are caught to when they are sold. The Commission and the
Member States have played an active role in the international action plan against unlawful, unregulated
and undeclared fishing; the plan provides for various ways of stamping out unlawful fishing (cid:129) such as
each state monitoring its nationals, monitoring and surveillance of fisheries activity from outset to landing,
and application of international market measures. The plan stresses above all the responsibility of the flag
state, as well as that of the port state and the importing state.

With regard to unlawful fishing(cid:146)s access to the Community market, as stated the international action plan
approved recourse to international and multilateral measures to stamp out trade in unlawfully obtained
fish and fisheries products by encouraging the application of penalties. The Regional Fisheries Organisa-
tions have demonstrated that it is possible to ban unlawful fish imports to the European market (e.g. the
bluefin tuna case at the ICCAT) and to monitor catches by means of catch certificates (e.g. at the
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Mar(cid:237)ne Living Resources (CCAMLR), the IATTC and the
ICCAT).

The Commission took part in the joint FAO/International Maritime Organisation (IMO) working party on
vessel monitoring by flag states. In fact the international action plan calls for a closer working relationship
between the FAO and the IMO, inter alia with a view to defining the substantive link between the fishing
vessel and the state (Article 91 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea).

(1) OJ L 328, 22.12.1999.
(2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2001/C 261 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: FIFG and reduction of the EU(cid:146)s fishing effort

(8 March 2001)

Parliament has asked the Commission and the European Council, in its resolution on the common fisheries
policy in the face of the challenge of economic globalisation, to continue with the provision of structural
aid to the sector, maintaining existing aids which do not entail an increase in the overall fishing effort,
notably those which imply environmental improvements or greater protection of the marine environment
and those granted to the fleets of Member States which have complied with their undertakings under the
successive Multiannual Guidance Programmes (MGPs). Parliament therefore calls on the Commission to
continue with its efforts to adapt the Community fleet to existing European and world resource levels, by