WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/01 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Fisheries agreement with Mauritania.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Mauritania, catch quota, fishing agreement, health legislation, processing industry

C 93 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

(2002/C 93 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/01

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Mauritania

For the new agreement with Mauritania, the European Union is demanding access to the same
1.
quantity of fish as under the previous protocol, despite knowing that certain fish stocks are already being
overfished now. By means of what procedure did the Commission arrive at its negotiating position, and
how does the negotiating mandate take account of the precautionary principle and the principle that
poverty should be combated?

The assessment of the previous protocol

2.
is extremely incomplete. Does the Commission have
sufficient data about fish stocks and about Mauritania’s fishing capacity to conclude a new protocol,
bearing in mind the precautionary principle and the principle that fishing should be sustainable? (The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is also relevant here, as it lays down that
fisheries agreements may only be concluded in respect of the surplus fish in the waters of a third country).

3. What connection is there between the negotiations on the fisheries agreement with Mauritania and
the drafting of Mauritania’s Country Strategy Paper under the Cotonou Agreement, and in this context
how, in particular, is account taken of the participation of local fishermen and the non-industrial fishing
sector both in the structure of the Country Strategy Paper and in the negotiations on the fisheries
agreement?

4.
To what extent does the European Union intend to invest in the further development of the fish-
processing industry in Mauritania, particularly as regards complying with the health and plant-health
requirements applied by the EU? Are there accompanying measures to ensure that non-industrial
fishermen, in particular, can comply with these requirements?

To what extent can the European Union guarantee that the financial compensation payable under a

5.
new protocol will benefit the local fishery sector in Mauritania?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2001)

1.
The Commission sets its negotiating position by taking into account all relevant factors that are
available. These include appropriate scientific advice reports from various sources, some of which point to
a certain recovery of some stocks, particularly cephalopods. The current negotiations with Mauritania
concern the renewal of a protocol to an existing fisheries agreement. Therefore, following established
practice, these negotiations do not require a negotiating mandate from Council.

2.
The Commission considers all scientific data available while recognising that these could be improved
quantitatively as well as qualitatively. The Commission has received information showing a decrease in
fishing capacity in the last few years caused by a gradual and continuous decrease in the number of so
called ‘chinese’ vessels that operated in Mauritanian waters.

3. Mauritania’s strategy paper takes account of the fisheries agreement with the Community in that the
economic analysis of the country incorporates the budget impact of that agreement. Thus, although no
budget assistance is currently provided for under the ninth European Development Fund (EDF), some
sectoral policy objectives have been selected (e.g. health and education). The country strategy for
Mauritania also provides for the possibility of helping the government to elaborate a national strategy for
fishing. Furthermore, under the ninth European Development Fund a number of measures will be geared
directly to civil society, which should benefit associations of small-scale fishermen, among others.
Moreover, the new protocol for the period 2001-2006 provides for support measures for small-scale
fishing.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/49

A portion of the compensation under the new protocol will be allocated to targeted actions. These
4.
are agreed following a request by Mauritania and they are subjected to specific procedures and follow-up
by the Commission. Under this framework,
in principle, give favourable
consideration to a funding request by Mauritania to improve compliance with Community requirements
on health and plant-health requirements by non-industrial fishermen, in particular.

the Commission would,

The use of the financial compensation, with the exception of the targeted actions,

5.
exclusively by Mauritania, as a sovereign nation.

is decided

(2002/C 93 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2030/01

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

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Incorporation of Galicia in the trans-European high-speed rail networks

On 6 June 2001, in document E-1046/01 (1), Mrs Loyola de Palacio replied to my written question of
3 April 2001 on Galicia’s integration in the trans-European transport networks by means of high-speed
rail services following the statements by the Spanish Minister for Internal Development and the President
of the Galician Regional Government on the plans to link the La Sanabria-Orense-Santiago route section to
La Meseta and the La Coruña-Vigo-Oporto section to Portugal.

Unaware of these statements and presumably basing her answer on official documents in the Commission’s
possession, she gave to understand that the Ponferrada to Monforte line might become the access route for
high-speed trains to Galicia.

When it learned of the Commission’s answer, the Galician Government responded by dismissing it,
criticising the Commission, and confirming that access would be provided via the La Sanabria-Orense-
Santiago line.

How much truth is there in all the above assertions? At all events, by what kind of supposedly high-speed
network might Galicia be linked to La Meseta and Portugal?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 155.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2001)

The Commission’s answer to the Honourable Member’s written question E-1046/01 (1) refers to the
guidelines in Decision No 1692/96 (2) adopted by Parliament and the Council
in 1996 on the trans-
European transport network. As the Commission has already pointed out in its reply to the Honourable
Member’s oral question H-530/01 at question time in the part-session of July 2001 (3), these guidelines are
currently being revised.

In the course of preparing their revision proposal, the Spanish national authorities sent the Commission a
request for the national high-speed rail plan to be included. This plan comprises, in particular, the high-
speed links between Madrid and Galicia via Sanabria, Orense and Santiago and the section between La
Coruña, Vigo and the frontier with Portugal stemming from the agreement between the Spanish and
Galician governments. The Commission, as mentioned in its White Paper on the European transport policy
adopted on 12 September 2001 (4), intends to propose as part of this revision modification of the list of
‘specific’ projects in Annex III. The projects envisaged and mentioned in the White Paper include the
interoperability of the Iberian high-speed rail network on the basis of the Spanish and Portuguese national
high-speed rail plans, which include the lines in Galicia mentioned above.

The Commission wishes to point out that the definition of ‘high-speed line’ in this plan corresponds to
that in Council Directive 96/48/EC (5) of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-
speed rail system. This Directive states that high-speed lines comprise specially built high-speed lines
equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h, specially upgraded lines equipped for
speeds of the order of 200 km/h and specially upgraded lines on which the speed must be adapted on a
case-by-case basis.