WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Fisheries aspects of the EU-Chile association agreement.
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Chile, association agreement (EU), common commercial policy, common fisheries policy, exclusive economic zone, fishing area, fishing industry, liberalisation of trade, originating product, protectionism, trade dispute

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/129

there would be a need for substantial
If the EU is to sign an association agreement with Algeria,
improvements in respect for human rights. In what way will the Council ensure that an assessment of the
human rights situation in Algeria and compliance with the article of the association agreement relating to
human rights constitute a separate item on the agenda for all meetings, especially those of the Association
Council, concerning the agreement?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the Council’s replies to questions E-0881/02 put
by Patricia McKenna, E-1031/02 put by Philip Bushill-Matthews and E-1109/02 put by Christos Zacharakis
and Konstantinos Hatzidakis.

(2002/C 309 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1494/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Problems associated with a jointly funded building project at Perivolia, prefecture of Rethymnon,

Greece

Under the 1986-1993 Integrated Mediterranean Programme for Crete, a day nursery was built at Perivolia
in the prefecture of Rethymnon, which began operation in 1993. The building is now closed as it has
twice been affected by subsidence and is not considered to be safe for the children. The authorities claim
that the subsidence is due to the presence of water in the subsoil. However, serious doubts have been
raised about shoddy workmanship and whether the necessary works inspections were carried out.

1.

Is the Commission familiar with the problems which have arisen with the above project?

If so, what are the causes of the problems created and what steps will the Commission take to

2.
identify where responsibility lies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The Commission had not been informed of the problem to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission is not empowered to determine responsibility in this case. Resolution of the problem is a
matter for the national authorities acting under the relevant national legislation.

(2002/C 309 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Fisheries aspects of the EU-Chile association agreement

(29 May 2002)

On 26 April 2002 the Commission and the Government of Chile signed an Association Agreement, which
will be presented in Madrid on 17 May and will be submitted for ratification by the national parliaments
and the European Parliament. This agreement provides for the creation of a free-trade area, a political
dialogue and wide-ranging cooperation.

The agreement has been criticised by the EC fisheries sector, and it appears to have been framed in the
context of a misunderstanding of globalisation: the Commission has given in to the demands of third
countries, opening up the Community market while failing to defend our fleet’s interests. It has not asked

C 309 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

for access to Chilean resources or an unloading facility in Chilean ports. As of January, only four
Community vessels are permitted to unload in three Chilean ports; the remainder have to do so in Peru,
thus facing higher costs and greater distances. It therefore seems impossible to justify the Commission’s
decision to temporarily suspend the proceedings taken out by the Community against Chile in the WTO
and at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (cid:1) even more so as it is Chile’s intention, in
contravention of the Convention on the Law of Sea, to extend its Exclusive Economic Zone and related
legislation beyond the 200-mile limit.

Another aspect criticised in EC fishing milieux is that concerning rules of origin: the Commission has
agreed that fish caught by the Community fleet should be considered products of Chilean origin. This is a
step backwards and represents a negative precedent for future negotiations with other countries.

On what grounds can the Commission justify this failure to defend the Community’s interests, in an area
such as rules of origin, in the Association Agreement signed with Chile?

What guarantees can the Commission extend to the Community fleet to ensure that it is enabled to unload
freely in Chilean ports, thus ending the present situation? Should the problems and restrictions continue,
will the Commission support taking out fresh proceedings with the WTO and the International Tribunal
for the Law of the Sea?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s view that the Commission has given in to the
demands of Chile while failing to defend European interests. The Commission wishes to point out that the
Association Agreement is not a fishing agreement on access to the fishing resources of the parties, nor is it
to independent
the framework for such an agreement. This type of
negotiations and it would be placed in the framework of specific negotiating directives.

licenses is normally subject

However, during the negotiations, the Commission made Chile the offer of a substantially improved
commercial arrangement in exchange for access to Chilean fishing resources. This offer was completely
rejected by Chile, which denies any access to its fishing resources to ships that do not fly the Chilean flag.
However, an increase in opportunities to invest Community capital in the Chilean fisheries sector was
obtained. In this way, Community fishing companies will be allowed to own up to 100 % of Chilean
fishing companies, under the same conditions as Chilean investors, with only one condition: that the
legislation applicable in the European country where the capital invested in Chile comes from, also allows
for majority investment of Chilean capital in that European country.

As it was not possible to obtain direct access to the fishing-grounds of Chile for the Community fishing
fleet, but only an improvement in the possibilities of indirect access, via investments, the commercial
concessions by the Community do not include more than 91 % of its imports (in value) of fishing products
originating in Chile.

Another aspect mentioned in the question are the rules of origin for fishing products. According to the
terms of the agreement reached, the same principle that governs all the preferential regimes of the
Community has also been adopted in the case of Chile: the origin of the catches is determined by the ship
and not by the catch area. So, the catches made by the Community fleet will be of Community origin and
not of Chilean origin. Therefore, the provisions included in the Association Agreement do not constitute a
step backward or a negative precedent.

The Honourable Member is correct in that access to Chilean ports is limited to four Community vessels,
under a joint fisheries research programme. This was only one component of a package agreed in the
context of a bilateral Arrangement of January 2001 which resulted in the temporary suspension of the
proceedings launched by the Community and Chile in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), respectively. However, if the Commission is of the
view that the bilateral Arrangement of 2001 is not being respected by Chile it has the right to call for the
re-activation of the suspended WTO proceedings.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/131

A further element of the bilateral Arrangement, is that multilateral co-operation on swordfish in the South-
East Pacific should be advanced. Recently, the Community and Chile jointly launched an International
Consultation process with the view of establishing multilateral co-operation in the South-East Pacific
regarding the conservation and management of the swordfish stocks in that region. The Community
believes that any future Arrangement established on this basis should cover the complete range of the
stocks, both inside and outside the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the coastal states concerned. Any
conservation measures adopted in this framework would be decided on a multilateral basis in accordance
with the Law of the Sea.

(2002/C 309 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Investigations into paedophile websites

Reports have recently appeared in the Italian weekly press concerning investigations now being carried out
by the Italian post office police into paedophile and child pornography websites. In addition to these
police investigations, an information campaign has been launched in schools to explain the dangers of the
Internet to children, parents and teachers. A year ago, an investigation by the post office police led to the
closure of a site whose owners were charged with promoting prostitution. Numerous other questions have
been submitted on similar subjects.

Does the Commission not consider that this experience sets a precedent for action at Community level to
close down child pornography websites?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content (including child pornography) is with the appropriate
law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Member States, which co-operate internationally in the
fight against child pornography on the Internet through the existing channels of communications, such as
Europol and Interpol.

The Union has been a forerunner in the fight against illegal and harmful content since 1996, with an
approach agreed unanimously by the Parliament and the Council. The Safer Internet Action Plan adopted
by the Council and the Parliament on 25 January 1999 (1) is a major element in the Commission’s activity
in the field, providing funding for a European network of hotlines, allowing users to report illegal content
including child pornography. The Commission has proposed on 22 March 2002 (2) to extend the current
Action Plan for a second phase of two years, as well as to adapt its scope and implementation to take
account of lessons learned and new technologies, and to ensure co-ordination with parallel work in the
field of network and information security.

Other elements of the Union strategy to combat child pornography include legal instruments and practical
measures against computer crime and child pornography. These include the Commission proposal for a
Council Framework Decision (3) on approximation of laws and sanctions in the field of sexual exploitation
of children, with particular
reference to child pornography on the Internet, and the Council
Recommendation of 24 September 1998 (4) on Protection of minors and human dignity and the Council
Decision of 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (5).

(1) OJ L 33, 6.2.1999.
(2) COM(2002) 152 final.
(3) COM(2000) 854 final.
(4) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.
(5) OJ L 138, 9.6.2000.