WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. EU fisheries agreement with South Africa.
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, South Africa, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing rights, free-trade agreement, international negotiations

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/91

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The issue of paying advances to facilitate the start up of activities, financed under the Swedish Objective 3
programme,
is a national matter. These national advances are allowed under Community regulations,
although they cannot be submitted for reimbursement given that they do not correspond to expenditure
actually incurred and paid out.

National advances were not allowed in Sweden in the previous programming period, although they were,
in practice, in most other Member States. Instead promoters in Sweden could submit monthly claims.
During the present programming period, the Swedish Government is allowing, under certain conditions,
an advance payment of 10 % of the funds granted (maximum SEK 10 000) for small local projects by
non-governmental organisations or by social economy in order to facilitate their start-up of projects. The
Swedish European Social Fund (ESF) Council has proposed to the Swedish government to extend the
advance payments to small small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with staff under ten persons.

(2002/C 134 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 October 2001)

Subject: EU fisheries agreement with South Africa

For years the EU has been attempting to conclude a fisheries agreement with South Africa, but in spring
2001 the South Africans gave a flat refusal. The fisheries negotiations then collapsed. The trade agreement
with South Africa did however come into force in January 2000.

It might however be feared that South Africa’s refusal to allow in foreign fishing fleets might in the longer
term have implications for the major trade agreement between the EC and South Africa, which took four
years to negotiate. There is a link between the trade agreement and the wrecked fisheries negotiations.
Duty-free entry for South African fisheries products is directly linked to the outcome of the fisheries
negotiations. Nobody is saying it outright, but there is also a degree of pressure from the EC with regard to
wines and spirits, negotiations on which have yet to be concluded. Out of the Member States only Sweden
and the Netherlands had ratified the trade agreement by May 2001. These two countries have no interests
in the fisheries or wine industries. The other Member States seem to be pursuing a wait-and-see policy. In
May 2001 no country had yet threatened to back out from the trade agreement, but the southern
European countries with the most negative views include those with the largest fishing fleets.

What is the Council doing to encourage ratification of the trade agreement by the Member States? Can it
guarantee that no linkage is made between the failure of the fisheries negotiations and the fact that the
trade agreement with South Africa has not been ratified by all Member States?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

1.
The negotiations for the conclusion of a Fisheries Agreement were suspended in March 2001 when
South Africa, in addition to cooperation in a number of fishery-related areas, refused to include access to
South African fishery resources for European vessels. This position was seen as contrary to the mutual
understanding reached at a technical meeting held in Cape Town in December 2000 and, furthermore, did
not meet the objectives enumerated in the mandate adopted by the Council in September 1995. The
Community is ready to resume the negotiations; however, this would require mutual understanding on
access to the fishery resources in the South African exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

C 134 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

the provisional application nor the full entry into force of

The Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) with South Africa was concluded in
2.
1999. At this juncture, the state of negotiations for a fisheries agreement with South Africa should affect
neither
the TDCA. Council Decision
1999/753/EC of 29 July 1999 establishes provisional and partial application of the TDCA as of 1 January
2000, pending ratification by the parties of the Agreement. As this is a mixed agreement, it also requires
ratification by the Member States. As of 22 October 2001, only Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden
have ratified the TDCA.

3.
Following the second meeting of the South Africa-EU Cooperation Council on 26 June 2001, a
group of high level officials met on 25 July 2001, to tackle the outstanding wine and spirits issues in the
framework of the negotiations for wine and spirits agreement. At that meeting, the experts agreed on a
memorandum of understanding on outstanding issues, which will be the basis for the conclusion of the
wine and spirits agreement.

(2002/C 134 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2747/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Loopholes in Schengen checks

The police in Södermalm, Stockholm, report that in the summer of 2001 a number of individuals were
caught who had entered the Schengen area via Paris but without entry stamps in their passports. For
example, a policeman stopped two people from Chile who had flown from Santiago via Paris to Arlanda
airport by Air France. They only had exit stamps from Santiago. One of them had been barred from entry
to the Schengen area. At the checkpoints in Arlanda there have also been cases of US citizens arriving in
Sweden via Paris without having been checked at Charles de Gaulle airport.

According to information obtained by the Stockholm police, Paris and Milan lack both the staff, equipment
and procedures to comply with the Schengen agreement. It is quite likely that international criminals have
noted and exploited this fact.

What is the Council doing to deal with this problem?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

The Council
informs the Honourable Member that measures to improve the effectiveness of Member
States’ control of external borders have mostly been drawn up within the framework of the Schengen
cooperation which, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, has been incorporated into EU
legislation. These measures are carried out by the Member States themselves, but the Council monitors
actual implementation through its relevant subordinate bodies.

The Schengen acquis, as part of EU legislation, contains provisions on the control of external borders.
These provisions are contained in the Common Manual for border control. However, it does not include
provisions regarding the number of personnel or the type of equipment required for efficient border
control which is left to the competence of the Member States.

The Council can, however, monitor Member States’
implementation of the Schengen acquis via the
‘Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen’ created by a decision of the