WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement and development cooperation.
Date: 2003-01-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Guinea-Bissau, common fisheries policy, financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, fishing licence, fishing rights

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/317

(2004/C 88 E/0322)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/03

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

(28 January 2003)

Subject: EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement, can the Commission
indicate:

1. how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Guinea-Bissau?

2. how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the

Community fleet?

3. how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Protocol

1.
in force (16 June 2001 to 15 June 2006) of the Fishing agreement between the
Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau stipulates in its Article 2 that EUR 1 million per year of the
total financial counterpart will be used for the payment of the specific actions established in Article 4 of
the latter. Aforementioned actions have as specific aim the development of the Guinea fishing sector.

2.
The Protocol states in its Article 2 that the financial counterpart rises to EUR 10 million per year
(EUR 10,5 million for the two last years). Of that amount, the financial compensation rises to EUR 9 million
for the first three years of validity of the Protocol and EUR 9,5 million for the last two.

According to that article, the government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau has exclusive competence to
determine the use of the financial compensation established by the Protocol.

The fishing possibilities determined by Article 1 of that Protocol are the following:

(cid:1) trawler shrimp fishermen deep freezers: 9 600 (gross registered tonnage) (GRT) per year;

(cid:1) trawler deep freezers (finfish and cephalopods): 2 800 GRT per year;

(cid:1) purse-seine tuna vessels: 40 vessels;

(cid:1) pole-and-line and surface long-liners: 36 vessels.

3.

The fees payable by ship owners shall be as follows in EUR per GRT:

(cid:1) for annual licences:

(cid:1) 197 for fin-fish trawlers,

(cid:1) 219 for cephalopod trawlers,

(cid:1) 279 for shrimp trawlers;

(cid:1) for six-month licences:

(cid:1) 102 for fin-fish trawlers,

(cid:1) 113 for cephalopod trawlers,

(cid:1) 144 for shrimp trawlers;

(cid:1) for three-month licences:

(cid:1) 52 for fin-fish trawlers,

(cid:1) 58 for cephalopod trawlers,

(cid:1) 73 for shrimp trawlers.

C 88 E/318

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

These fees shall be increased by 5 % as from the fourth twelve-month period of application of the Protocol.

As an alternative to the compulsory landing at market prices provided for under point 4,
supplementary fees for ship owners opting not to land fish shall be as follows:

the

(cid:1) EUR 7/GRT for three-month licences,

(cid:1) EUR 14/GRT for six-month licences,

(cid:1) EUR 23/GRT for annual licences.

(2004/C 88 E/0323)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0215/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2003)

Subject: Drug-related escalation of violence in Bolivia

The situation in Bolivia vis-à-vis the demonstrations by indigenous groups that advocate the use of
traditional produce such as coca leaf (cid:1) currently strictly regulated by the Bolivian Government (cid:1) should
become of particular concern to the international community. In fact, over the last few days in Bolivia
there has been a series of clashes between the police and army and the protesters, mainly farmers, who
were demonstrating against the eradication of their traditional crop. According to Bolivian media outlets
the situation is characterised by an escalation of violence that has led to at least 17 deaths, dozens
wounded and hundreds arrested.

Is the Commission aware of the nature of such an escalation in the confrontation between the Government
and indigenous groups on the eradication of coca, and what measures is the Commission enforcing or
does it intend to enforce in its support to the Bolivian authorities in their crop eradication activities?

Does the Commission not believe that
the time has come to address the failures, and disastrous
consequences, that prohibition is provoking in producer and consumer countries alike and initiate at the
upcoming ministerial segment of the UN Commission on Narcotics, scheduled for 16 and 17 April 2003,
a process of revision of the three international Conventions on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances in
order to promote a more effective pragmatic approach to the drug question?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Commission has been monitoring closely the escalation in the confrontation between the Government
of Bolivia and coca producers and other social sectors and noted with concern the incidents of violence
associated with the road blocks which have been erected since 13 January 2003. The Commission is
pleased to note that an agreement reached between Evo Morales and President Sánchez de Lozada on
26 January 2003 appears to have scaled down the confrontation and enabled the two sides to engage in a
dialogue, including on the Government’s coca eradication policy and drug control enforcement practices.

On the basis of the principle of co-responsibility,
the Commission has been supporting alternative
development projects in Bolivia in line with the priorities for cooperation identified in its Country Strategy
Paper. Three projects worth a total of EUR 30 million are currently underway with a fourth for
EUR 13 million likely to be approved during 2003.

The approach adopted by the Commission starts from the fact that most of the people working in illegal
coca plantations have left behind, temporary or permanently, poor living conditions and depressed local
economies in the mining communities of the western Highlands and the high valleys of the Cochabamba
region. Since the income which can be generated by growing coca is much higher than that which can be
earned by working in the mining areas or by growing legal crops, it is essential to give farmers access to
viable alternative sources of income.